How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

Colonic Stenting in the Emergency Setting

Nowadays, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer, and about a third of patients with CRC presents themselves with symptoms of large bowel obstruction. Historically, surgical resection was the treatment of choice for colonic obstruction, but this kind of approach is burdened by a high risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. In recent times, the use of a colonic stent has been proposed to overcome the obstruction and transform an emergency surgical case into an elective one to avoid emergency surgery complications. Endoscopic stenting is the first-line treatment option in the palliative management of colonic obstruction, and there is sufficient scientific evidence to support this approach. However, endoscopic stent used as a bridge to surgery is not yet widely adopted because the concern was raised about the long-term survival and cancer safety of this approach. The recent scientific evidence has shown that this approach improves the short-term outcomes, such as postoperative complications and the stoma rate, without differences in long-term outcomes compared to emergency surgery. Therefore, the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in 2020 has reconsidered stenting as a bridge to surgery as a valid alternative to emergency surgery

Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colonic obstruction: results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ESCO trial)

BACKGROUND: The aim of colonic stenting with self-expandable metallic stents in neoplastic colon obstruction is to avoid emergency surgery and thus potentially reduce morbidity, mortality, and need for a stoma. Concern has been raised, however, about the effect of colonic stenting on short-term complications and long-term survival. We compared morbidity rates after colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) in the management of left-sided malignant large-bowel obstruction. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was designed with the endorsement of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. The study population was consecutive patients with acute, symptomatic malignant left-sided large-bowel obstruction localised between the splenic flexure and 15 cm from the anal margin. The primary outcome was overall morbidity within 60 days after surgery. RESULTS: Between March 2008 and November 2015, 144 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SBTS or ES; 29/144 (13.9%) were excluded post-randomisation mainly because of wrong diagnosis at computed tomography examination. The remaining 115 patients (SBTS n = 56, ES n = 59) were deemed eligible for analysis. The complications rate within 60 days was 51.8% in the SBTS group and 57.6% in the ES group (p = 0.529). Although long-term follow-up is still ongoing, no statistically significant difference in 3-year overall survival (p = 0.998) and progression-free survival rates between the groups has been observed (p = 0.893). Eleven patients in the SBTS group and 23 in the ES group received a stoma (p = 0.031), with a reversal rate of 30% so far. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equivalent. No difference in oncologic outcome was found at a median follow-up of 36 months. The significantly lower stoma rate noted in the SBTS group argues in favour of the SBTS procedure when performed in expert hands