Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS A PRISMA-compliant systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted, searching PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials assessing outcomes of LPP vs standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) in colorectal surgery. Efficacy outcomes [pain score in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), pain score postoperative day 1 (POD1), operative time, and hospital stay] and safety outcomes (blood loss and postoperative complications) were analyzed. Risk of bias2 tool assessed bias risk. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. RESULTS Four studies included 537 patients (male 59.8%). LPP was undertaken in 280 (52.1%) patients and associated with lower pain scores in PACU [weighted mean difference: -1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.65 to -0.47, P = 0.004, I 2  = 0%] and POD1 (weighted mean difference: -0.49, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.07, P = 0.024, I 2  = 0%). Meta-regression showed that age [standard error (SE): 0.036, P < 0.001], male sex (SE: 0.006, P < 0.001), and operative time (SE: 0.002, P = 0.027) were significantly associated with increased complications with LPP. In addition, 5.9%-14.5% of surgeons using LLP requested pressure increases to equal the SPP group. The grade of evidence was high for pain score in PACU and on POD1 postoperative complications and major complications, and blood loss, moderate for operative time, low for intraoperative complications, and very low for length of stay. CONCLUSIONS LPP was associated with lower pain scores in PACU and on POD1 with similar operative times, length of stay, and safety profile compared with SPP in colorectal surgery. Although LPP was not associated with increased complications, older patients, males, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, and those with longer operative times may be at risk of increased complications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials on the role of prehabilitation programs in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND Prehabilitation is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery but lacks high-quality postoperative outcomes data. This meta-analysis explored whether prehabilitation impacts postoperative outcomes. METHODS In this meta-analysis, compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, we searched PubMed and Scopus through November 2022. High-quality randomized control trials involving adults who underwent colorectal surgery with/without exercise-based prehabilitation were included. The main outcomes were short-term postoperative morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Seven high-quality randomized control trials comprising 1,225 patients were included. The median prehabilitation duration was 4 (2-4) weeks. Four studies compared prehabilitation and standard of care, and 3 compared prehabilitation and rehabilitation. Exercise-based prehabilitation did not reduce the odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.27-1.40, P = .25, I2 = 68%) or readmission (odds ratio 1, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.46, P = .85, I2 = 0%). The prehabilitation group had shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -0.2, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.14, P < .0001, I2 = 43.3%). Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.89, P = .91, I2 = 33%), length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.47 to 0.16, P = .33, I2 = 59%), and readmission (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.28-5.56, P = .77, I2 = 52%). The only benefit of prehabilitation over rehabilitation was better 6-minute walking distance test results at time of surgery (weighted mean difference: -9.4 m; 95% confidence interval -18.04 to 0.79, P = .03, I2 = 42%). CONCLUSION Prehabilitation provided decreased postoperative length of hospital stay and improved preoperative functional outcomes, but not reduced odds of complications and/or readmissions. Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar clinical outcomes

Trans‑anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus rigid platforms for local excision of early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND Available platforms for local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer are rigid or flexible [trans‑anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)]. We systematically searched the literature to compare outcomes between platforms. METHODS PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed and Scopus databases until September 2022 was undertaken in this random-effect meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic. Studies comparing TAMIS versus rigid platforms for LE for early rectal cancer were included. Main outcome measures were intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and specimen quality. RESULTS 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2022, including 931 patients (423 females); 402 underwent TAMIS and 529 underwent LE with rigid platforms. Techniques were similar for operative time (WMD 11.1, 95%CI - 2.6 to 25, p = 0.11), percentage of defect closure (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.06-8.22, p = 0.78), and peritoneal violation (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.12-1.43, p = 0.16). Rigid platforms had higher rates of short-term complications (19.1% vs 14.2, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.07-2.4, p = 0.02), although no significant differences were seen for major complications (OR 1.41, 95%CI 0.61-3.23, p = 0.41). Patients in the rigid platforms group were 3-times more likely to be re-admitted within 30 days compared to the TAMIS group (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.07-9.4, p = 0.03). Rates of positive resection margins (rigid platforms: 7.6% vs TAMIS: 9.34%, OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.42-1.55, p = 0.53) and specimen fragmentation (rigid platforms: 3.3% vs TAMIS: 4.4%, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33-1.64, p = 0.46) were similar between the groups. Salvage surgery was required in 5.5% of rigid platform patients and 6.2% of TAMIS patients (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.8, p = 0.7). CONCLUSION TAMIS or rigid platforms for LE seem to have similar operative outcomes and specimen quality. The TAMIS group demonstrated lower readmission and overall complication rates but did not significantly differ for major complications. The choice of platform should be based on availability, cost, and surgeon's preference

Quality of Life in Older Adults After Major Cancer Surgery:The GOSAFE International Study

Abstract Background Accurate quality of life (QoL) data and functional results after cancer surgery are lacking for older patients. The international, multicenter Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) Study compares QoL before and after surgery and identifies predictors of decline in QoL. Methods GOSAFE prospectively collected data before and after major elective cancer surgery on older adults (≥70 years). Frailty assessment was performed and postoperative outcomes recorded (30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively) together with QoL data by means of the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), including 2 components: an index (range = 0-1) generated by 5 domains (mobility, self-care, ability to perform the usual activities, pain or discomfort, anxiety or depression) and a visual analog scale. Results Data from 26 centers were collected (February 2017-March 2019). Complete data were available for 942/1005 consecutive patients (94.0%): 492 male (52.2%), median age 78 years (range = 70-95 years), and primary tumor was colorectal in 67.8%. A total 61.2% of all surgeries were via a minimally invasive approach. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality was 3.7%, 6.3%, and 9%, respectively. At 30 and 180 days, postoperative morbidity was 39.2% and 52.4%, respectively, and Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were 13.5% and 18.7%, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L index was similar before vs 3 months but improved at 6 months (0.79 vs 0.82; P &amp;lt; .001). Domains showing improvement were pain and anxiety or depression. A Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool score greater than or equal to 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 2.21, P = .007), palliative surgery (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.01 to 4.52, P = .046), postoperative complications (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.18, P = .007) correlated with worsening QoL. Conclusions GOSAFE shows that older adults’ preoperative QoL is preserved 3 months after cancer surgery, independent of their age. Frailty screening tools, patient-reported outcomes, and goals-of-care discussions can guide decisions to pursue surgery and direct patients’ expectations

Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review

This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process

Outcomes of intended temporary stomas in Crohn's disease (INTESTINE study): International, multicentre, retrospective study

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.BACKGROUND: Patients with ileocolic Crohn's disease often require surgery that can result in temporary stoma formation. Stomas are associated with a morbidity and can negatively impact quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the short-term (6-month) and mid-term (18-month) outcomes of intended temporary stomas in patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS: A trainee-led, international multicentre, retrospective study was conducted on all patients who underwent surgery for Crohn's disease in collaborating centres over 4 years (2017-2020). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with Crohn's disease who underwent stoma reversal surgery by 6- and 18-month postoperative follow-up. Secondary outcomes included: the time interval between formation and reversal of stoma and predictors for non-reversal and stoma-related morbidity (postoperative complications, related readmissions and complications due to stoma reversal surgery). RESULTS: A total of 401 patients underwent stoma formation for Crohn's disease over the 4 years across the 44 collaborating centres. The temporary stomas had been reversed in 30.2% of patients at the 6-month and 56.9% at the 18-month follow-up. Reasons for non-reversal included ongoing medical treatment for Crohn's disease (respectively 6-month and 18-month: 37.6%, 39.3%), patient unfit for surgery (respectively 6-month and 18-month: 14.5%, 16.8%), patient preference (respectively 6-month and 18-month: 12.1%, 20.2%) and due to waiting lists (respectively 6-month and 18-month: 12.1%, 8.1%). Overall, 63.3% of patients had a temporary stoma reversed with a median time interval of 6 months. The stoma-related overall morbidity rate was 29.4%. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of temporary stomas for Crohn's disease were not reversed at 6 and 18 months following initial surgery. Patients are exposed to the risk of non-reversal and risk of developing stoma complications for significantly longer intervals of time and, in some cases, indefinitely.Unfunde

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

Biological Treatment and the Potential Risk of Adverse Postoperative Outcome in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Open-Source Expert Panel Review of the Current Literature and Future Perspectives

Background There is widespread concern that treatment with biologic agents may be associated with suboptimal postoperative outcome after surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Aim We aimed to search and analyze the literature regarding the potential association of biologic treatment on adverse postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. We used the subject as a case in point for surgical research. The aim was not to conduct a new systematic review. Method This is an updated narrative review written in a collaborative method by authors invited through Twitter via the following hashtags (#OpenSourceResearch and #SoMe4Surgery). The manuscript was presented as slides on Twitter to allow discussion of each section of the paper sequentially. A Google document was created, which was shared across social media, and comments and edits were verified by the primary author to ensure accuracy and consistency. Results Forty-one collaborators responded to the invitation, and a total of 106 studies were identified that investigated the potential association of preoperative biological treatment on postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. Most of these studies were retrospective observational cohorts: 3 were prospective, 4 experimental, and 3 population-based studies. These studies were previously analyzed in 10 systematic/narrative reviews and 14 meta-analyses. Type of biologic agents, dose, drug concentration, antidrug antibodies, interval between last dose, and types of surgery varied widely among the studies. Adjustment for confounders and bias control ranged from good to very poor. Only 10 studies reported postoperative outcome according to Clavien–Dindo classification. Conclusion Although a large number of studies investigated the potential effect of biological treatment on postoperative outcomes, many reported divergent results. There is a need for randomized controlled trials. Future studies should focus on the avoiding the weakness of prior studies we identified. Seeking collaborators and sharing information via Twitter was integral to widening the contributors/authors and peer review for this article and was an effective method of collaboration