ERAS program adherence-institutionalization, major morbidity and anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery: the iCral2 multicenter prospective study

Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs influence morbidity rates and length of stay after colorectal surgery (CRS), and may also impact major complications and anastomotic leakage rates. A prospective multicenter observational study to investigate the interactions between ERAS program adherence and early outcomes after elective CRS was carried out. Methods Prospective enrolment of patients submitted to elective CRS with anastomosis in 18 months. Adherence to 21 items of ERAS program was measured upon explicit criteria in every case. After univariate analysis, independent predictors of primary endpoints [major morbidity (MM) and anastomotic leakage (AL) rates] were identified through logistic regression analyses including all significant variables, presenting odds ratios (OR). Results Institutional ERAS protocol was declared by 27 out of 38 (71.0%) participating centers. Median overall adherence to ERAS program items was 71.4%. Among 3830 patients included in the study, MM and AL rates were 4.7% and 4.2%, respectively. MM rates were independently influenced by intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (OR 7.79, 95% CI 5.46-11.10; p < 0.0001) and standard anesthesia protocol (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96; p = 0.028). AL rates were independently influenced by male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06-2.07; p = 0.021), intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.93-6.50; p < 0.0001) and non-standard resections (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.22; p = 0.049). Conclusions This study disclosed wide room for improvement in compliance to several ERAS program items. It failed to detect any significant association between institutionalization and/or adherence rates to ERAS program with primary endpoints. These outcomes were independently influenced by gender, intra- and postoperative blood transfusions, non-standard resections, and standard anesthesia protocol

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

ICG fluorescence imaging in colorectal surgery: a snapshot from the ICRAL study group

Background: Fluorescence-guided visualization is a recently proposed technology in colorectal surgery. Possible uses include evaluating perfusion, navigating lymph nodes and searching for hepatic metastases and peritoneal spread. Despite the absence of high-level evidence, this technique has gained considerable popularity among colorectal surgeons due to its significant reliability, safety, ease of use and relatively low cost. However, the actual use of this technique in daily clinical practice has not been reported to date. Methods: This survey was conducted on April 2020 among 44 centers dealing with colorectal diseases and participating in the Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group. Surgeons were approximately equally divided based on geographical criteria from multiple Italian regions, with a large proportion based in public (89.1%) and nonacademic (75.7%) centers. They were invited to answer an online survey to snapshot their current behaviors regarding the use of fluorescence-guided visualization in colorectal surgery. Questions regarding technological availability, indications and techniques, personal approaches and feelings were collected in a 23-item questionnaire. Results: Questionnaire replies were received from 37 institutions and partially answered by 8, as this latter group of centers do not implement fluorescence technology (21.6%). Out of the remaining 29 centers (78,4%), fluorescence is utilized in all laparoscopic colorectal resections by 72.4% of surgeons and only for selected cases by the remaining 27.6%, while 62.1% of respondents do not use fluorescence in open surgery (unless the perfusion is macroscopically uncertain with the naked eye, in which case 41.4% of them do). The survey also suggests that there is no agreement on dilution, dosing and timing, as many different practices are adopted based on personal judgment. Only approximately half of the surgeons reported a reduced leak rate with fluorescence perfusion assessment, but 65.5% of them strongly believe that this technique will become a minimum requirement for colorectal surgery in the future. Conclusion: The survey confirms that fluorescence is becoming a widely used technique in colorectal surgery. However, both the indications and methods still vary considerably; furthermore, the surgeons' perceptions of the results are insufficient to consider this technology essential. This survey emphasizes the need for further research to reach recommendations based on solid scientific evidence. Keywords: Colon cancer; Fluorescence guided surgery; ICG; Laparoscopy; Rectal cancer

Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: real-world data from the italian national registry of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery

Aim: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become the standard of care for benign and low malignant lesions. Spleen preservation in this setting has been proposed to reduce surgical trauma and long-term sequelae. The aim of the current study is to present real-world data on indications, techniques, and outcomes of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP). Methods: Patients who underwent SPDP and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (DPWS) were extracted from the 2019-2022 Italian National Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (IGoMIPS). Perioperative and pathological data were collected. Results: One hundred and ten patients underwent SPDP and five hundred and seventy-eight underwent DPWS. Patients undergoing SPDP were significantly younger (56 vs. 63.5 years; P < 0.001). Seventy-six percent of SPDP cases were performed in six out of thirty-four IGoMIPS centers. SPDP was performed predominantly for Neuroendocrine Tumors (43.6% vs.23.5%; P < 0.001) and for smaller lesions (T1 57.6% vs. 29.8%; P < 0.001). The conversion rate was higher in the case of DPWS (7.6% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.006), even when pancreatic cancer was ruled out (5.0% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.045). The robotic approach was most commonly used for SPDP (50.9% vs. 29.7%; P < 0.001). No difference in postoperative outcomes and length of stay was observed between the two groups, as well as between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in the SPDP group. A trend toward a lower rate of postoperative sepsis was observed after SPDP (0.9% vs. 5.2%; P = 0.056). In 84.7% of SPDP, splenic vessels were preserved (Kimura procedure) without an impact on short-term postoperative outcomes. Conclusion: In this registry analysis, SPDP was feasible and safe. The Kimura procedure was prevalent over the Warshaw procedure. The typical patient undergoing SPDP was young with a neuroendocrine tumor at an early stage. Robotic assistance was used more frequently for SPDP than for DPWS

Colorectal surgery in Italy during the Covid19 outbreak: a survey from the iCral study group

Background The COVID19 pandemic had a deep impact on healthcare facilities in Italy, with profound reorganization of surgical activities. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group collecting 43 Italian surgical centers experienced in colorectal surgery from multiple regions performed a quick survey to make a snapshot of the current situation. Methods A 25-items questionnaire was sent to the 43 principal investigators of the iCral study group, with questions regard- ing qualitative and quantitative aspects of the surgical activity before and after the COVID19 outbreak. Results Two-thirds of the centers were involved in the treatment of COVID19 cases. Intensive care units (ICU) beds were partially or totally reallocated for the treatment of COVID19 cases in 72% of the hospitals. Elective colorectal surgery for malignancy was stopped or delayed in nearly 30% of the centers, with less than 20% of them still scheduling elective colo- rectal resections for frail and comorbid patients needing postoperative ICU care. A significant reduction of the number of colorectal resections during the time span from January to March 2020 was recorded, with significant delay in treatment in more than 50% of the centers. Discussion Our survey confirms that COVID19 outbreak is severely affecting the activity of colorectal surgery centers partici- pating to iCral study group. This could impact the activity of surgical centers for many months after the end of the emergency

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BackgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.MethodsA retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.ResultsA total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 +/- 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 +/- 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 +/- 12 vs LapA 10.3 +/- 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.ConclusionsBased on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay

Gastro-intestinal emergency surgery: Evaluation of morbidity and mortality. Protocol of a prospective, multicenter study in Italy for evaluating the burden of abdominal emergency surgery in different age groups. (The GESEMM study)

Gastrointestinal emergencies (GE) are frequently encountered in emergency department (ED), and patients can present with wide-ranging symptoms. more than 3 million patients admitted to US hospitals each year for EGS diagnoses, more than the sum of all new cancer diagnoses. In addition to the complexity of the urgent surgical patient (often suffering from multiple co-morbidities), there is the unpredictability and the severity of the event. In the light of this, these patients need a rapid decision-making process that allows a correct diagnosis and an adequate and timely treatment. The primary endpoint of this Italian nationwide study is to analyze the clinicopathological findings, management strategies and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal emergency procedures performed in patients over 18. Secondary endpoints will be to evaluate to analyze the prognostic role of existing risk-scores to define the most suitable scoring system for gastro-intestinal surgical emergency. The primary outcomes are 30-day overall postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Secondary outcomes are 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, stratified for each procedure or cause of intervention, length of hospital stay, admission and length of stay in ICU, and place of discharge (home or rehabilitation or care facility). In conclusion, to improve the level of care that should be reserved for these patients, we aim to analyze the clinicopathological findings, management strategies and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal emergency procedures performed in patients over 18, to analyze the prognostic role of existing risk-scores and to define new tools suitable for EGS. This process could ameliorate outcomes and avoid futile treatments. These results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk EGS procedure

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

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception