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

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

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)

Fashioning enterotomy closure after totally laparoscopic ileocolic anastomosis for right colon cancer: a multicenter experience

Background Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is a commonly performed procedure. Little is known on how to perform the enterotomy closure after stapled side-to-side intracorporeal anastomosis. Method A multicentric case-controlled study has been designed to compare different ways to fashion enterotomy closure: double layer versus single layer, sewn versus stapled, and robotic versus laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, additional characteristics including sutures' materials, interrupted versus running suture and the presence of deep corner suture has been investigated. Results We collected data for 1092 patients who underwent right hemicolectomy at ten centers. We analyzed 176 robotic against 916 laparoscopic anastomosis: no significant differences were found in terms of bleedings (p = 0.455) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.405). We collected data from 126 laparoscopic sewn single-layer versus 641 laparoscopic sewn double-layer anastomosis: a significant reduction was recorded in terms of leaks in double-layer group (p = 0.02). About double-layer characteristics, we found a significant reduction of bleedings (p = 0.008) and leaks (p = 0.017) with a running suture; similarly, a reduction of bleedings (p = 0.001) and leaks (p = 0.005) was observed with the usage of deep corner closure. The presence of a barbed suture thread seemed to significantly reduce both bleedings (p = 0.001) and leaks (p = 0.001). We found no significant differences in terms of bleedings (p = 0.245) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.660) comparing sewn versus stapled anastomosis. Conclusions Fashioning a stapled ileocolic intracorporeal anastomosis, we can recommend the adoption of a double-layer enterotomy closure using a running barbed suture in the first layer. Totally, stapled closure and robotic assistance have to be considered a non-inferior alternative

Impact of COVID-19 on the oncological outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in northern Italy in 2019 and 2020: multicentre comparative cohort study

Background: This study compared patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in 20 hospitals of northern Italy in 2019 versus 2020, in order to evaluate whether COVID-19-related delays of colorectal cancer screening resulted in more advanced cancers at diagnosis and worse clinical outcomes.Method: This was a retrospective multicentre cohort analysis of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in March to December 2019 versus March to December 2020. Independent predictors of disease stage (oncological stage, associated symptoms, clinical T4 stage, metastasis) and outcome (surgical complications, palliative surgery, 30-day death) were evaluated using logistic regression.Results: The sample consisted of 1755 patients operated in 2019, and 1481 in 2020 (both mean age 69.6 years). The proportion of cancers with symptoms, clinical T4 stage, liver and lung metastases in 2019 and 2020 were respectively: 80.8 versus 84.5 per cent; 6.2 versus 8.7 per cent; 10.2 versus 10.3 per cent; and 3.0 versus 4.4 per cent. The proportions of surgical complications, palliative surgery and death in 2019 and 2020 were, respectively: 34.4 versus 31.9 per cent; 5.0 versus 7.5 per cent; and 1.7 versus 2.4 per cent. Cancers in 2020 (versus 2019) were more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio 1.36 (95 per cent c.i. 1.09 to 1.69)), clinical T4 stage (odds ratio 1.38 (95 per cent c.i. 1.03 to 1.85)) and have multiple liver metastases (odds ratio 2.21 (95 per cent c.i. 1.24 to 3.94)), but were not more likely to be associated with surgical complications (odds ratio 0.79 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.93)).Conclusion: Colorectal cancer patients who had surgery between March and December 2020 had an increased risk of advanced disease in terms of associated symptoms, cancer location, clinical T4 stage and number of liver metastases

Current practice on the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy in Italy: the Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy ({ADiGe}) survey

Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing and ERAS guidelines suggest the benefit of drain avoidance. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Research Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. A 28-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the respondents. Most of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience, or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the participants remove the drain on postoperative day 4-6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain's role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous

The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy.Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group.Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P < .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P < .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9).Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey

Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons' use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67-100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5-20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1-50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients

The pan - COVID - AGICT study. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgically treated pancreatic cancer patients. A multicentric Italian study

Background: In this article we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study, to investigate the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancers (PC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The primary endpoint of the study was to find out any difference in the tumoral stage of surgically treated PC patients between 2019 and 2020. Surgical and oncological outcomes of the entire cohort of patients were also appraised dividing the entire peri-pandemic period into six three-month timeframes to balance out the comparison between 2019 and 2020. Results: Overall, a total of 1815 patients were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 in 14 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (p = 0.846). During the pandemic, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) has dropped significantly (6.2% vs 21.4%, p < 0.001) and, for patients who didn't undergo NCT, the latency between diagnosis and surgery was shortened (49.58 +/- 37 days vs 77.40 +/- 83 days, p < 0.001). During 2020 there was a significant increase in minimally invasive procedures (p < 0.001). The rate of postoperative complication was the same in the two years but during 2020 there was an increase of the medical ones (19% vs 16.1%, p = 0.001). Conclusions: The post-pandemic dramatic modifications in healthcare provision, in Italy, did not significantly impair the clinical history of PC patients receiving surgical resection. The present study is one of the largest reports available on the argument and may provide the basis for long-term analyses

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP