Non-excisional techniques for the treatment of intergluteal pilonidal sinus disease:a systematic review

Non-excisional techniques for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) have gained popularity over the last years. The aim of this study was to review short and long-term outcomes for non-excisional techniques with special focus on the additive effect of treatment of the inner lining of the sinus cavity and the difference between primary and recurrent PSD. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases for studies on non-excisional techniques for PSD including pit picking techniques with or without additional laser or phenol treatment, unroofing, endoscopic techniques and thrombin gelatin matrix application. Outcomes were recurrence rates, healing rates, complication rates, wound healing times and time taken to return to daily activities. In total, 31 studies comprising 8100 patients were included. Non-excisional techniques had overall healing rates ranging from 67 to 100%. Recurrence rates for pit picking, unroofing and gelatin matrix application varied from 0 to 16% depending on the follow-up time. Recurrence rates after additional laser, phenol and endoscopic techniques varied from 0 to 29%. Complication rates ranged from 0 to 16%, and the wound healing time was between three and forty-seven days. The return to daily activities varied from one to nine days. Non-excisional techniques are associated with fast recovery and low morbidity but recurrence rates are high. Techniques that attempt to additionally treat the inner lining of the sinus have worse recurrence rates than pit picking alone. Recurrence rates do not differ between primary and recurrent disease.</p

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.BACKGROUND: High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.RESULTS: Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.CONCLUSION: According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.</p

National implementation of an optimal standardised technique for right-sided colon cancer:protocol of an interventional sequential cohort study (Right study)

Purpose: Minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with right-sided colon cancer. This operation has evolved during recent decades, with many innovations and improvements but this has also resulted in high variability of uptake with subsequent substantial variableness. The aim of this ongoing study is to identify current surgical variations, determine the most optimal and standardised MIRH and nationally train and implement that technique to improve short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes. Methods: The Right study is a national multicentre prospective interventional sequential cohort study. Firstly, current local practice was evaluated. Subsequently, a standardised surgical technique for right-sided colon cancer was determined using the Delphi consensus method, and this procedure was trained during hands-on courses. The standardised MIRH will be implemented with proctoring (implementation cohort), after which the performance will be monitored (consolidation cohort). Patients who will receive a minimally invasive (extended) right hemicolectomy for cT1-3N0-2M0 colon cancer will be included. The primary outcome is patient safety reflected in the 90-day overall complication rate according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes will include intraoperative complications, 90-day mortality rate, number of resected tumour-positive lymph nodes, completeness of mesocolic excision, surgical quality score, locoregional and distant recurrence and 5-year overall survival. A total number of 1095 patients (365 per cohort) will be included. Discussion: The Right study is designed to safely implement the best surgical practice concerning patients with right-sided colon cancer aiming to standardise and improve the surgical quality of MIRH at a national level. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889456, May 2021.</p

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.BACKGROUND: High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.RESULTS: Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.CONCLUSION: According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.</p

Interobserver variability in the classification of appendicitis during laparoscopy

Background: The intraoperative classification of appendicitis dictates the patient's postoperative management. Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for complex appendicitis (gangrenous, perforated, abscess), whereas preoperative prophylaxis suffices for simple appendicitis. Distinguishing these two conditions can be challenging. The aim of this study was to assess interobserver variability in the classification of appendicitis during laparoscopy. Methods: Short video recordings taken during laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis were shown to surgeons and surgical residents. They were asked to: classify the appendix as indicative of no, simple or complex appendicitis; categorize the appendix as normal, phlegmonous, gangrenous, perforated and/or abscess; and decide whether they would prescribe postoperative antibiotics. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Fleiss' κ score and the S* statistic. Results: Some 80 assessors participated in the study. Video recordings of 20 patients were used. Interobserver agreement was minimal for both the classification of appendicitis (κ score 0·398, 95 per cent c.i. 0·385 to 0·410) and the decision to prescribe postoperative antibiotic treatment (κ score 0·378, 0·362 to 0·393). Agreement was slightly higher when published criteria were applied (κ score 0·552, 0·537 to 0·568). Conclusion: There is considerable variability in the intraoperative classification of appendicitis and the decision to prescribe postoperative antibiotic treatment

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH. METHOD: Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923. CONCLUSION: Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).</p

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitisA and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitisB in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

Background: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy. The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and powe

Management of intra-abdominal infections : recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference

This paper reports on the consensus conference on the management of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) which was held on July 23, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland, as a part of the annual World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) meeting. This document covers all aspects of the management of IAIs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendation is used, and this document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference findings.Peer reviewe