Length of stay after colorectal surgery in Italy: the gap between “fit for” and “actual” discharge in a prospective cohort of 4529 cases

Background: It is common to observe a gap between the day on which the discharge criteria are reached and the actual day of discharge after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to understand the reasons for this difference and its clinical impact on the overall length of stay (LOS). Methods: All patients enrolled in the prospective iCral3 study were analyzed regarding any difference and reason between the "fit for discharge" (FFD) and "actual discharge" (AD) dates. The association between the gap and the LOS in the whole population was then assessed through a multivariate regression model including other confounding variables. Results: The analysis included 4529 patients, with a median [IQR] LOS of 6 [4-8] days. The median [IQR] LOS was 6 [4-8] days in the no-gap group (3,910 patients, 86.3%), significantly lower (p < .001) than 7 [6-10] days in the gap group (619 patients, 13.7%). Among the gap reasons, the "need for postoperative rehabilitation" compared to "not willing to return home" and "social constraints" was associated with the longest LOS (9 [6.0-12.5] days, p < 0.001 vs other reasons). The existence of the gap independently determined a 2.3-day lengthening of LOS. Conclusions: Among other factors, the gap between FFD and AD had an independent impact on LOS. The most frequent reasons for this gap were "not willing to return home" and "social constraint", while the "need for postoperative rehabilitation" had the greater clinical impact

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort

background: In italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. methods: a database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. the primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. the results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. results: a total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). group a versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). a mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. no difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. conclusion: this study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

background current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. this study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. methods a prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. the primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. all the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). results compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). conclusions MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Laparoscopic surgery for splenic injuries in the era of non-operative management: current status and future perspectives

The spleen is one of the organs most commonly injured by blunt abdominal trauma. It plays an important role in immune response to infections, especially those sustained by encapsulated bacteria. Nonoperative management (NOM), comprising clinical and radiological observation with or without angioembolization, is the treatment of choice for traumatic splenic injury in patients who are hemodynamically stable. However, this strategy carries a risk of failure, especially for high-grade injuries. No clear predictors of failure have been identified, but minimally invasive surgery for splenic injury is gaining popularity. Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for hemodynamically stable patients who require surgery, such as after failed NOM. We reviewed research articles on laparoscopic surgery for hemodynamically stable patients with splenic trauma to explore the current knowledge about this topic. After presenting an overview of the treatments for splenic trauma and the immunological function of the spleen, we try to identify the future indications for laparoscopic surgery in the era of NOM

Laparoscopic surgery for splenic injuries in the era of non-operative management: current status and future perspectives

AbstractThe spleen is one of the organs most commonly injured by blunt abdominal trauma. It plays an important role in immune response to infections, especially those sustained by encapsulated bacteria. Nonoperative management (NOM), comprising clinical and radiological observation with or without angioembolization, is the treatment of choice for traumatic splenic injury in patients who are hemodynamically stable. However, this strategy carries a risk of failure, especially for high-grade injuries. No clear predictors of failure have been identified, but minimally invasive surgery for splenic injury is gaining popularity. Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for hemodynamically stable patients who require surgery, such as after failed NOM. We reviewed research articles on laparoscopic surgery for hemodynamically stable patients with splenic trauma to explore the current knowledge about this topic. After presenting an overview of the treatments for splenic trauma and the immunological function of the spleen, we try to identify the future indications for laparoscopic surgery in the era of NOM.</jats:p

Application of Indocyanine Green Enhanced Fluorescence in Esophageal Surgery: A Mini Review

Despite recent technological innovations and the development of minimally invasive surgery, esophagectomy remains an operation burdened with severe postoperative complications. Fluorescence imaging, particularly using indocyanine green (ICG), offers the ability to address a number of issues faced during esophagectomy. The three main indications for the intraoperative use of ICG during esophagectomy are visualization of conduit vascular supply, allow identification of sentinel nodes and visualization of the thoracic duct. The purpose of this mini review is to present an overview of current practice in fluorescence imaging utilizing ICG during esophagectomy, as well as to demonstrate how this technology can guide lymphadenectomy and reduce surgical morbidity such as anastomotic leaking and chylothorax.</jats:p

Predicting Postoperative Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Colon Cancer: A Machine Learning Approach Using SICE (Societ&agrave; Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica) CoDIG Data

The evolution of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, particularly with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central vascular ligation (CVL), represents a significant advancement in colon cancer surgery. The CoDIG 1 and CoDIG 2 studies highlighted Italy&rsquo;s progressive approach, providing useful findings for optimizing patient outcomes and procedural efficiency. Within this context, accurately predicting postoperative length of stay (LoS) is crucial for improving resource allocation and patient care, yet its determination through machine learning techniques (MLTs) remains underexplored. This study aimed to harness MLTs to forecast the LoS for patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for colon cancer, using data from the CoDIG 1 (1224 patients) and CoDIG 2 (788 patients) studies. Multiple MLT algorithms, including random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM), were trained to predict LoS, with CoDIG 1 data used for internal validation and CoDIG 2 data for external validation. The RF algorithm showed a strong internal validation performance, achieving the best performances and a 0.92 ROC in predicting long-term stays (more than 5 days). External validation using the SVM model demonstrated 75% ROC values. Factors such as fast-track protocols, anastomosis, and drainage emerged as key predictors of LoS. Integrating MLTs into predicting postoperative LOS in colon cancer surgery offers a promising avenue for personalized patient care and improved surgical management. Using intraoperative features in the algorithm enables the profiling of a patient&rsquo;s stay based on the planned intervention. This issue is important for tailoring postoperative care to individual patients and for hospitals to effectively plan and manage long-term stays for more critical procedures