15 research outputs found
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
Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy
IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical
attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced
colorectal cancers at diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced
oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all
17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December
31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period),
in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was
30 days from surgery.
EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery,
palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer
at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as
cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding,
lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery,
and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes
was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster
variable.
RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years)
underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142
(56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was
significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR],
1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic
lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients
undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for
these patients
Digital single-operator cholangioscopy in diagnostic and therapeutic bilio-pancreatic diseases: A prospective, multicenter study
Background and aim: Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) is an endoscopic procedure that is increasingly used for the management of bilio-pancreatic diseases. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of D-SOC for diagnostic and therapeutic indications. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective study(January 2016-June 2019) across eighteen tertiary centers. The primary outcome was procedural success of D-SOC. Secondary outcomes were: D-SOC visual assessment and diagnostic yield of SpyBite biopsy in cases of biliary strictures, stone clearance rate in cases of difficult biliary stones, rate of adverse events(AEs) for all indications. Results: D-SOC was performed in 369 patients (201(54,5%) diagnostic and 168(45,5%)therapeutic). Overall, procedural success rate was achieved in 360(97,6%) patients. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy in biliary strictures were: 88,5%, 77,3%, 83,3%, 84,1% and 83,6% for D-SOC visual impression; 80,2%, 92,6%, 95,1%, 72,5% and 84,7% for the SpyBite biopsy, respectively. For difficult biliary stones, complete duct clearance was obtained in 92,1% patients (82,1% in a single session). Overall, AEs occurred in 37(10%) cases.The grade of AEs was mild or moderate for all cases, except one which was fatal. Conclusion: D-SOC is effective for diagnostic and therapeutic indications.Most of the AEs were minor and managed conservatively, even though a fatal event has happened that is not negligible and should be considered before using D-SOC
Minimally invasive approach to incisional hernia in elective and emergency surgery: a SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies) and ISHAWS (Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) online survey
Minimally invasive abdominal wall surgery is growing worldwide, with a constant and fast improvement of surgical techniques and surgeons' confidence in treating both primary and incisional hernias (IH). The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (SICE) and the ISHAWS (Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) worked together to investigate state of the art in IH treatment in elective and emergency settings in Italy. An online open survey was designed, and Italian surgeons interested in abdominal wall surgery were invited to fill out a 20-point questionnaire on IH surgical procedures performed in their departments. Surgeons were asked to express their points of view on specific questions about technical and clinical variables in IH treatment. Preferred approach in elective IH surgery was minimally invasive (59.7%). Open surgery was the preferred approach in 40.3% of the responses. In emergency settings, open surgery was the preferred approach (65.4%); however, 34.5% of the involved surgeons declare to prefer the laparoscopic/endoscopic approach. Most respondents opted for conversion to open surgery in case of relevant surgical field contamination, with a non-mesh repair of abdominal wall defects. Among those that used the laparoscopic approach in the emergent setting, the majority (74%) used the size of the defect of 5 cm as a decisional cut-off. The spread of minimally invasive approaches to IH repair in emergency surgery in Italy is gaining relevance. Code-sharing through scientific societies can improve clinical practice in different departments and promote a tailored approach to IH surgery
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