Simple fistula-in-ano: is it all simple? A systematic review

Fístula rectal; Proctologia; FistulotomiaFístula rectal; Proctología; FistulotomíaRectal fistula; Proctological surgery; FistulotomyBackground: Simple anal fistula is one of the most common causes of proctological surgery and fistulotomy is considered the gold standard. This procedure, however, may cause complications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the surgical treatment of simple anal fistula with traditional and sphincter-sparing techniques. Methods: A literature research was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar to identify studies on the surgical treatment of simple anal fistulas. Observational studies and randomized clinical trials were included. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials, and the MINORS Scale for the remaining studies. Results: The search returned 456 records, and 66 studies were found to be eligible. The quality of the studies was generally low. A total of 4883 patients with a simple anal fistula underwent a sphincter-cutting procedure, mainly fistulotomy, with a weighted average healing rate of 93.7%, while any postoperative continence impairment was reported in 12.7% of patients. Sphincter-sparing techniques were adopted to treat 602 patients affected by simple anal fistula, reaching a weighted average success rate of 77.7%, with no study reporting a significant postoperative incontinence rate. The postoperative onset of fecal incontinence and the recurrence of the disease reduced patients' quality of life and satisfaction. Conclusions: Surgical treatment of simple anal fistulas with sphincter-cutting procedures provides excellent cure rates, even if postoperative fecal incontinence is not a negligible risk. A sphincter-sparing procedure could be useful in selected patients.Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreemen

Gatekeeper Improves Voluntary Contractility in Patients With Fecal Incontinence

Background. Gatekeeper (GK) has shown to be safe and effective in patients with fecal incontinence (FI). We aimed to understand its mechanism of action by comparing pre- and post-implant change in the external anal sphincter (EAS) contractility. Methods. Study of EAS contractility was conducted in 16 FI females (median age = 69 years) before and after implant of 6 GK prostheses. Muscle tension (Tm), expressed in millinewtons per centimeter squared, mN(cm2) 121, was calculated using the equation Tm = P(ri)(tm) 121, where P is the average maximum squeeze pressure and ri and tm the inner radius and thickness of the EAS, respectively. The effect of a predefined set of covariates on Tm was tested by restricted maximum likelihood models. Results. Compared with baseline, despite unchanged tm (2.7 [2.5-2.8] vs 2.5 [2.2-2.8] mm; P =.31 mm), a significant increase in P (median = 45.8 [26.5-75.8] vs 60.4 [43.1-88.1] mm Hg; P =.017), and ri (12.4 [11.5-13.4] vs 18.7 [17.3-19.6] mm; P <.001) resulted in an increase in Tm (233.2 [123.8-303.2] vs 490.8 [286.9-562.4] mN(cm2) 121; P <.001) at 12 months after GK implant. Twelve-month follow-up improvements were also observed on Cleveland Clinic FI score (8-point median decrease; P =.0001), St Marks FI score (10-point median decrease; P <.0001), and American Medical Systems score (39-point median decrease; P <.0001). Restricted maximum likelihood models showed that years of onset of FI was negatively associated with change in Tm (P =.048). Conclusions. GK-related EAS compression positively influences muscle contractility by increasing ri, with consequent increase in Tm (length-tension relationship). Further studies are needed to confirm the long-term effectiveness of GK

Augmentation of Clozapine with Aripiprazole in Severe Psychotic Bipolar and Schizoaffective Disorders: A Pilot Study

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the augmentation of clozapine with aripiprazole in patients with treatment-resistant schizoaffective and psychotic bipolar disorders in a retrospective manner. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions between the two drugs were also investigated. PATIENTS: Three men and 4 women (median age 36 and 40 years, respectively) who had mean scores at BPRS and CGI-Severity of 59.1+/-12.0 and 5.4+/-0.5, respectively, were treated with clozapine (mean dose 292.9+/-220.7 mg/day). Patients received an adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole (mean dose 6.8 +/- 3.7 mg/day). Clozapine, norclozapine and aripiprazole plasma levels were measured by means of a high performance liquid chromatograpy with UV detection. RESULTS: Total scores at BPRS decreased significantly (from 59.1+/-12.0 to 51.1+/-15.6, p=0.007) after aripirazole augmentation. In particular, the factors "thought disorder" (from 10.4+/-4.4 to 9.0+/-4.5, p=.047) and "anergia" (from 10.0+/-2.7 to 8.0+/-2.4, p=.018) significantly improved. Concomitant administration of aripiprazole and clozapine did not result in an increase in side effects over the period of treatment. Dose-normalized plasma levels of both clozapine and norclozapine and the clozapine/norclozapine metabolic ratio in all patients did not vary as well. CONCLUSION: The augmentation of clozapine with aripirazole was safe and effective in severe psychotic schizoaffective and bipolar disorders which failed to respond to atypical antipsychotics. A possible pharmacokinetic interaction between clozapine and aripiprazole does not account for the improved clinical benefit obtained after aripiprazole augmentation

FISSIT (Fistula Surgery in Italy) study: A retrospective survey on the surgical management of anal fistulas in Italy over the last 15 years

Background: Surgical treatment of anal fistulas is still a challenge. The aims of this study were to evaluate the adoption and healing rates for the different surgical techniques used in Italy over the past 15 years. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective observational study of patients affected by simple and complex anal fistulas of cryptoglandular origin who were surgically treated in the period 2003-2017. Surgical techniques were grouped as sphincter-cutting or sphincter-sparing and as technology-assisted or techno-free. All patients included in the study were followed for at least 12 months. Results: A total of 9,536 patients (5,520 simple; 4,016 complex fistulas) entered the study. For simple fistulas, fistulotomy was the most frequently used procedure, although its adoption significantly decreased over the years (P < .0005), with an increase in sphincter-sparing approaches; the overall healing rate in simple fistulas was 81.1%, with a significant difference between sphincter-cutting (91.9%) and sphincter-sparing (65.1%) techniques (P = .001). For complex fistulas, the adoption of sphincter-cutting approaches decreased, while sphincter-sparing techniques were mildly preferred (P < .0005). Moreover, there was a significant trend toward the use of technology-assisted procedures. The overall healing rate for complex fistulas was 69.0%, with a measurable difference between sphincter-cutting (81.1%) and sphincter-sparing (61.4%; P = .001) techniques and between techno-free and technology-assisted techniques (72.5% and 55.0%, respectively; P = .001). Conclusion: Surgical treatment of anal fistulas has changed, with a trend toward the use of sphincter-sparing techniques. The overall cure rate has remained stable, even if the most innovative procedures have achieved a lower success rate

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

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

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity > 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI

Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10 years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37 years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease