The Importance of the Pathologist’s Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome

Factors predicting hospital length-of-stay and readmission after colorectal resection: a population-based study of elective and emergency admissions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The impact of developments in colorectal cancer surgery on length-of-stay (LOS) and re-admission have not been well described. In a population-based analysis, we investigated predictors of LOS and emergency readmission after the initial surgery episode.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Incident colorectal cancers (ICD-O2: C18-C20), diagnosed 2002-2008, were identified from the National Cancer Registry Ireland, and linked to hospital in-patient episodes. For those who underwent colorectal resection, the associated hospital episode was identified. Factors predicting longer LOS (upper-quartile, > 24 days) for elective and emergency admissions separately, and whether LOS predicted emergency readmission within 28 days of discharge, were investigated using logistic regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>8197 patients underwent resection, 63% (n = 5133) elective and 37% (n = 3063) emergency admissions. Median LOS was 14 days (inter-quartile range (IQR) = 11-20) for elective and 21 (15-33) for emergency admissions. For both emergency and elective admissions, likelihood of longer LOS was significantly higher in patients who were older, had co-morbidities and were unmarried; it was reduced for private patients. For emergency patients only the likelihood of longer LOS was lower for patients admitted to higher-volume hospitals. Longer LOS was associated with increased risk of emergency readmission.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>One quarter of patients stay in hospital for at least 25 days following colorectal resection. Over one third of resected patients are emergency admissions and these have a significantly longer median LOS. Patient- and health service-related factors were associated with prolonged LOS. Longer LOS was associated with increased risk of emergency readmission. The cost implications of these findings are significant.</p

Fast track multi-discipline treatment (FTMDT trial) versus conventional treatment in colorectal cancer--the design of a prospective randomized controlled study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Laparoscopy-assisted surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment are both increasingly used in colorectal cancer treatment, for their short-time benefits of enhanced recovery and short hospital stays. However, the benefits of the integration of the Laparoscopy-assisted surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment, and even with the Xelox chemotherapy, are still unknown. In this study, the three treatments integration is defined as "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment Model" for colorectal cancer and this model extends the benefits to the whole treatment process of colorectal cancer. The main purpose of the study is to explore the feasibility of "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment" model in treatment of colorectal cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The trial is a prospective randomized controlled study with 2 × 2 balanced factorial design. Patients eligible for the study will be randomized to 4 groups: (I) Laparoscopic surgery with fast track perioperative treatment and Xelox chemotherapy; (II) Open surgery with fast track perioperative treatment and Xelox chemotherapy; (III) Laparoscopic surgery with conventional perioperative treatment and mFolfox6 chemotherapy; (IV) Open surgery with conventional perioperative treatment and mFolfox6 chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of this study is the hospital stays. The secondary endpoints are the quality of life, chemotherapy related adverse events, surgical complications and hospitalization costs. Totally, 340 patients will be enrolled with 85 patients in each group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study initiates a new treatment model "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment" for colorectal cancer, and will provide feasibility evidence on the new model "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment" for patients with colorectal cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01080547">NCT01080547</a></p

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P &lt; 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

The Hellenic emergency laparotomy study (HELAS): a prospective multicentre study on the outcomes of emergency laparotomy in Greece

Background Emergency laparotomy (EL) is accompanied by high post-operative morbidity and mortality which varies significantly between countries and populations. The aim of this study is to report outcomes of emergency laparotomy in Greece and to compare them with the results of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA). Methods This is a multicentre prospective cohort study undertaken between 01.2019 and 05.2020 including consecutive patients subjected to EL in 11 Greek hospitals. EL was defined according to NELA criteria. Demographics, clinical variables, and post-operative outcomes were prospectively registered in an online database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of post-operative mortality. Results There were 633 patients, 53.9% males, ASA class III/IV 43.6%, older than 65 years 58.6%. The most common operations were small bowel resection (20.5%), peptic ulcer repair (12.0%), adhesiolysis (11.8%) and Hartmann’s procedure (11.5%). 30-day post-operative mortality reached 16.3% and serious complications occurred in 10.9%. Factors associated with post-operative mortality were increasing age and ASA class, dependent functional status, ascites, severe sepsis, septic shock, and diabetes. HELAS cohort showed similarities with NELA patients in terms of demographics and preoperative risk. Post-operative utilisation of ICU was significantly lower in the Greek cohort (25.8% vs 56.8%) whereas 30-day post-operative mortality was significantly higher (16.3% vs 8.7%). Conclusion In this study, Greek patients experienced markedly worse mortality after emergency laparotomy compared with their British counterparts. This can be at least partly explained by underutilisation of critical care by surgical patients who are at high risk for death

Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model for serious complications after emergency laparotomy

Purpose Emergency laparotomy (EL) is a common operation with high risk for postoperative complications, thereby requiring accurate risk stratification to manage vulnerable patients optimally. We developed and internally validated a predictive model of serious complications after EL. Methods Data for eleven carefully selected candidate predictors of 30-day postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >  = 3) were extracted from the HELAS cohort of EL patients in 11 centres in Greece and Cyprus. Logistic regression with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) was applied for model development. Discrimination and calibration measures were estimated and clinical utility was explored with decision curve analysis (DCA). Reproducibility and heterogeneity were examined with Bootstrap-based internal validation and Internal–External Cross-Validation. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program’s (ACS-NSQIP) model was applied to the same cohort to establish a benchmark for the new model. Results From data on 633 eligible patients (175 complication events), the SErious complications After Laparotomy (SEAL) model was developed with 6 predictors (preoperative albumin, blood urea nitrogen, American Society of Anaesthesiology score, sepsis or septic shock, dependent functional status, and ascites). SEAL had good discriminative ability (optimism-corrected c-statistic: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–0.81), calibration (optimism-corrected calibration slope: 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.03) and overall fit (scaled Brier score: 25.1%, 95% CI 24.1–26.1%). SEAL compared favourably with ACS-NSQIP in all metrics, including DCA across multiple risk thresholds. Conclusion SEAL is a simple and promising model for individualized risk predictions of serious complications after EL. Future external validations should appraise SEAL’s transportability across diverse settings

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background: There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low-and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods: Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results: Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion: For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Laparoscopy in management of appendicitis in high-, middle-, and low-income countries: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency worldwide. Differences between high- and low-income settings in the availability of laparoscopic appendectomy, alternative management choices, and outcomes are poorly described. The aim was to identify variation in surgical management and outcomes of appendicitis within low-, middle-, and high-Human Development Index (HDI) countries worldwide. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international prospective cohort study. Consecutive sampling of patients undergoing emergency appendectomy over 6 months was conducted. Follow-up lasted 30 days. RESULTS: 4546 patients from 52 countries underwent appendectomy (2499 high-, 1540 middle-, and 507 low-HDI groups). Surgical site infection (SSI) rates were higher in low-HDI (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.33-4.99, p = 0.005) but not middle-HDI countries (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.76-2.52, p = 0.291), compared with high-HDI countries after adjustment. A laparoscopic approach was common in high-HDI countries (1693/2499, 67.7%), but infrequent in low-HDI (41/507, 8.1%) and middle-HDI (132/1540, 8.6%) groups. After accounting for case-mix, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.71, p < 0.001) and SSIs (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33, p < 0.001). In propensity-score matched groups within low-/middle-HDI countries, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.23 95% CI 0.11-0.44) and SSI (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.09-0.45). CONCLUSION: A laparoscopic approach is associated with better outcomes and availability appears to differ by country HDI. Despite the profound clinical, operational, and financial barriers to its widespread introduction, laparoscopy could significantly improve outcomes for patients in low-resource environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02179112