Acute diverticulitis management: evolving trends among Italian surgeons. A survey of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

Acute diverticulitis (AD) is associated with relevant morbidity/mortality and is increasing worldwide, thus becoming a major issue for national health systems. AD may be challenging, as clinical relevance varies widely, ranging from asymptomatic picture to life-threatening conditions, with continuously evolving diagnostic tools, classifications, and management. A 33-item-questionnaire was administered to residents and surgeons to analyze the actual clinical practice and to verify the real spread of recent recommendations, also by stratifying surgeons by experience. CT-scan remains the mainstay of AD assessment, including cases presenting with recurrent mild episodes or women of child-bearing age. Outpatient management of mild AD is slowly gaining acceptance. A conservative management is preferred in non-severe cases with extradigestive air or small/non-radiologically drainable abscesses. In severe cases, a laparoscopic approach is preferred, with a non-negligible number of surgeons confident in performing emergency complex procedures. Surgeons are seemingly aware of several options during emergency surgery for AD, since the rate of Hartmann procedures does not exceed 50% in most environments and damage control surgery is spreading in life-threatening cases. Quality of life and history of complicated AD are the main indications for delayed colectomy, which is mostly performed avoiding the proximal vessel ligation, mobilizing the splenic flexure and performing a colorectal anastomosis. ICG is spreading to check anastomotic stumps' vascularization. Differences between the two experience groups were found about the type of investigation to exclude colon cancer (considering the experience only in terms of number of colectomies performed), the size of the peritoneal abscess to be drained, practice of damage control surgery and the attitude towards colovesical fistula

Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey

The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care