The effect of ERAS management in gastric cancer: assessment from the IMIGASTRIC study

Background:Establish protocols to enhance the surgical management (ERAS) can improve outcomes, shortening hospital stay and save resources. Several studies have carried out for colorectal surgery, while a lack of evidence for gastrectomy remains.This study aims to evaluate the impact of ERAS strategies in a large series of patients underwent gastric cancer surgery.Methods:This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing an ERAS group with a control group. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet.Results:Patients in the ERAS and control groups were 1:1 matched by the closest propensity score on the logit scale and with a Caliber = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 440 patients. The two groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P=0.31) and stage of the disease (P=0.61). A benefit in favor of the ERAS management was found in the length of hospital stay (P=0.0004) and complications rate (P=0.001).Conclusion:An ERAS program can safely be established in referral centers for gastric cancer, enabling to significantly improve the main clinical outcomes

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

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

Posthepatectomy liver failure after simultaneous versus staged resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous hepatic metastases

BACKGROUND: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is the third most frequent complication and the major cause of postoperative mortality after resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). In case of synchronous resectable CRLM, it is still unclear if surgical strategy (simultaneous versus staged resection of colorectal cancer and hepatic metastases) influences the incidence and severity of PHLF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of surgical strategy on PHLF and on the early and long-term outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study on 106 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for synchronous CRLM between 1997 and 2012. RESULTS: Of 106 patients, 46 underwent simultaneous resection and 60 had staged hepatectomy. The rate of PHLF was similar between groups (16.7% vs 15.2%; p=1) and subgroup analysis restricted to patients undergoing major hepatectomy confirmed this observation (31.8% vs 23.8%; p=0.56). Propensity-score analysis showed that pre-operative total bilirubin level and the amount of intra-operative blood transfusion were independently associated with an increased risk of PHLF. Nevertheless, the risk of severe PHLF (grade B – C) was increased in patients who underwent simultaneous resection and major hepatectomy (OR: 4.82; p=0.035). No significant differences were observed in severe (Dindo – Clavien 3 – 4) postoperative morbidity (23.9% vs 20.0%; p=0.64) and survival (3 and 5-year survival: 55% and 34% vs 56% and 33%; p=0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of PHLF is not associated with surgical strategy in the treatment of synchronous CRLM. Nevertheless, the risk of severe PHLF is increased in patients undergoing simultaneous resection and major hepatectomy

Implementation of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol for colorectal cancer surgery in the Piemonte Region with an Audit and Feedback approach: Study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: A study of the EASY-NET project

Introduction The ERAS protocol (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multimodal pathway aimed to reduce surgical stress and to allow a rapid postoperative recovery. Application of the ERAS protocol to colorectal cancer surgery has been limited to a minority of hospitals in Italy. To promote the systematic adoption of ERAS in the entire regional hospital network in Piemonte an Audit and Feedback approach (A&F) has been adopted together with a cluster randomised trial to estimate the true impact of the protocol on a large, unselected population. Methods A multicentre stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is designed for comparison between standard perioperative management and the management according to the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome is the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes are: incidence of postoperative complications, time to patients' recovery, control of pain and patients' satisfaction. With an A&F approach the adherence to the ERAS items is monitored through a dedicated area in the study web site. The study includes 28 surgical centres, stratified by activity volume and randomly divided into four groups. Each group is randomly assigned to a different activation period of the ERAS protocol. There are four activation periods, one every 3 months. However, the planned calendar and the total duration of the study have been extended by 6 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The expected sample size of about 2200 patients has a high statistical power (98%) to detect a reduction of LOS of 1 day and to estimate clinically meaningful changes in the other endpoints. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating centre and by all participating centres. Study results will be timely circulated within the hospital network and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04037787