Coronavirus pandemic and colorectal surgery: practical advice based on the Italian experience

Aim: The current COVID-19 pandemic is challenging healthcare systems at a global level. We provide a practical strategy to reorganize pathways of emergency and elective colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: The authors, all from areas affected by the COVID-19 emergency, brainstormed remotely to define the key-points to be discussed. Tasks were assigned, concerning specific aspects of colorectal surgery during the pandemic, including the administrative management of the crisis in Italy. The recommendations (based on experience and on the limited evidence available) were collated and summarized. Results: Little is known about the transmission of COVID-19, but it has shown a rapid spread. It is prudent to stop non-cancer procedures and prioritize urgent cancer treatment. Endoscopy and proctological procedures should be performed highly selectively. When dealing with colorectal emergencies, a conservative approach is advised. Specific procedures should be followed when operating on COVID-19-patients, using dedicated personal protective equipment and adhering to specific rules. Some policies are described, including minimally-invasive surgery. These policies outline the strict regulation of entry/ exit into theatres and operating building as well as advice on performing procedures safely to reduce risk of spreading the virus. It is likely that a reorganization of health system is required, both at central and local levels. A description of the strategy adopted in Italy is provided. Conclusion: Evidence on the management of patients needing surgery for colorectal conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic is currently lacking. Lessons learnt from healthcare professionals that have managed high volumes of surgical patients during the pandemic could be useful to mitigate some risks and reduce exposure to other patients, public and healthcare staff.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.published version, accepted version (12 month embargo), submitted versio

Perspectives on Surgery in the Time of COVID-19: Safety First

This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.published version, accepted version (12 month embargo), submitted versio

How to report educational videos in robotic surgery: an international multidisciplinary consensus statement

The swift endorsement of the robotic surgical platform indicates that it might prevail as the preferred technique for many complex abdominal and pelvic operations. Nonetheless, use of the surgical robotic system introduces further layers of complexity into the operating theatre necessitating new training models. Instructive videos with relevant exposition could be optimal for early training in robotic surgery and the aim of this study was to develop consensus guidelines on how to report a robotic surgery video for educational purposes to achieve high quality educational video outputs that could enhance surgical training. A steering group prepared a Delphi survey of 46 statements, which was distributed and voted on utilising an electronic survey tool. The selection of committee members was designed to include representative surgical trainers worldwide across different specialties, including lower and upper gastrointestinal surgery, general surgery, gynaecology and urology. 36 consensus statements were approved and classified in seven categories: author's information and video introduction, case presentation, demonstration of the surgical procedure, outcomes of the procedure, associated educational content, review of surgical videos quality and use of surgical videos in educational curricula. Consensus guidelines on how to report robotic surgery videos for educational purposes have been elaborated utilising Delphi methodology. We recommend that adherence to the guidelines presented could support advancing the educational quality of video outputs when designed for training.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.published version, accepted version (12 month embargo

Development and validation of a recommended checklist for assessment of surgical videos quality: the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool

Introduction: There has been a constant increase in the number of published surgical videos with preference for open-access sources, but the proportion of videos undergoing peer-review prior to publication has markedly decreased, raising questions over quality of the educational content presented. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a standard framework for the appraisal of surgical videos submitted for presentation and publication, the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool. Methods: An international committee identified items for inclusion in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool and finalised the marking score utilising Delphi methodology. The tool was finally validated by anonymous evaluation of selected videos by a group of validators not involved in the tool development. Results: 9 items were included in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool, with every item scoring from 0 (item not presented in the video) to 2 (item extensively presented in the video), with a total marking score ranging from 0 to 18. The LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool resulted highly accurate in identifying and selecting videos for acceptance for conference presentation and publication, with high level of internal consistency and generalisability. Conclusions: We propose that peer review in adherence to the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool could enhance the overall quality of published video outputs.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.published version, accepted version (12 month embargo

Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation

Background: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. Methods: A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality. Results: Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. Conclusion: The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.published version, accepted version (12 month embargo

Commentary on Aerobic versus isometric handgrip exercise in hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

We, members of the International Working Group on Isometric Exercise, read with great interest the article by Pagonas et al. on the comparative effects of aerobic and isometric handgrip exercise (IRT). However, we believe the finding, that aerobic exercise induces reductions in blood pressure (BP), whereas isometric exercise training (handgrip) does not, to be compromised for several reasons

An evidence-based guide to the efficacy and safety of isometric resistance training in hypertension and clinical implications.

More than 30 randomized controlled trials, supported by individual patient-level and group-level meta-analyses and a Delphi analysis of expert opinion, unequivocally show isometric resistance training (IRT) elicits antihypertensive benefits in healthy people and those with chronic illness. We aim to provide efficacy and safety evidence, and a guide for IRT prescription and delivery. Recommendations are made for the use of IRT in specific patient populations and appropriate methods for IRT delivery. Published data suggest IRT consistently elicits mean blood pressure reductions of 7.4/3.3 mmHg systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure, equivalent to antihypertensive medication monotherapy. Blood pressure reductions of this size are associated with an approximate 13% to 22% reduction in major cardiovascular events. Moreover, IRT is safe in a range of patient populations. We suggest that IRT has the greatest potential benefit when used as an antihypertensive therapy in individuals unwilling and/or unable to complete aerobic exercise, or who have had limited adherence or success with it; individuals with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension, already taking at least two pharmacological antihypertensive agents; and healthy or clinical populations, as an adjunct to aerobic exercise and dietary intervention in those who have not yet attained control of their hypertension. IRT is efficacious and produces clinically meaningful blood pressure reductions (systolic blood pressure, 7 mmHg; diastolic blood pressure, 3 mmHg). IRT is safe and typical program delivery requires only about 17 min weekly. IRT should be used as an adjunct to other exercise modalities, in people unable to complete other types of exercise, or in resistant hypertension. [Abstract copyright: © 2023. The Author(s).

Quality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer:systematic review

BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann’s, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools. METHODS: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies. CONCLUSION: Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data

Operative time and outcome of enhanced recovery after surgery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background and Objectives: Combining laparoscopy and enhanced recovery provides benefit to short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery. Advances in training and techniques have allowed surgeons to operate on cases that are technically challenging and associated with prolonged operative time. Laparoscopic techniques improve the outcome of enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery; however, there are no specifications on the effect of prolonged operations on the outcome. The objective was to elucidate the impact of prolonged surgery and blood loss on the outcome of enhanced recovery after surgery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods: Four-hundred patients who underwent elective colorectal resection on enhanced recovery after surgery in Yeovil District Hospital between 2002 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Delayed discharge was defined as a prolonged length of stay beyond the mean in this series (≥8 days). Results: Three-hundred eighty-five patients were included. Median operative time was 180 minutes with a median blood loss of 100 mL. Conversion was not associated with a prolonged length of stay. Operative time and blood loss correlated with length of stay in a stepwise fashion. There were 2 cutoff points of operative time at 160 minutes and 300 minutes (5 hours), where risk of prolonged stay increased significantly (odds ratio [OR] = 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.90; P= 027), and blood loss of >500 mL (OR = 3.114; 95% CI, 1.501-6.462, P =.002). Conclusions: Total operative timing impacts negatively on the outcome of enhanced recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections with increased risk of delayed discharge seen after ~2.5 hours and 5-hour duration. © 2014 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Major surgery induces acute changes in measured DNA methylation associated with immune response pathways

Surgery is an invasive procedure evoking acute inflammatory and immune responses that can influence risk for postoperative complications including cognitive dysfunction and delirium. Although the specific mechanisms driving these responses have not been well-characterized, they are hypothesized to involve the epigenetic regulation of gene expression. We quantified genome-wide levels of DNA methylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) longitudinally collected from a cohort of elderly patients undergoing major surgery, comparing samples collected at baseline to those collected immediately post-operatively and at discharge from hospital. We identified acute changes in measured DNA methylation at sites annotated to immune system genes, paralleling changes in serum-levels of markers including C-reactive protein (CRP) and Interleukin 6 (IL-6) measured in the same individuals. Many of the observed changes in measured DNA methylation were consistent across different types of major surgery, although there was notable heterogeneity between surgery types at certain loci. The acute changes in measured DNA methylation induced by surgery are relatively stable in the post-operative period, generally persisting until discharge from hospital. Our results highlight the dramatic alterations in gene regulation induced by invasive surgery, primarily reflecting upregulation of the immune system in response to trauma, wound healing and anaesthesia.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.This work was supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant MR/M008924/1), the Sasakawa Foundation (Butterfield Awards B108) and the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Exeter Clinical Research Facility (Exeter CRF).Published version, Accepted version, Submitted versio