Perfusion Assessment in Laparoscopic Left-Sided/Anterior Resection (PILLAR II): A Multi-Institutional Study

BackgroundOur primary objective was to demonstrate the utility and feasibility of the intraoperative assessment of colon and rectal perfusion using fluorescence angiography (FA) during left-sided colectomy and anterior resection. Anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal resection increases morbidity, mortality, and, in cancer cases, recurrence rates. Inadequate perfusion may contribute to AL. The PINPOINT Endoscopic Fluorescence Imaging System allows for intraoperative assessment of anastomotic perfusion.Study DesignThis is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial that assessed the feasibility and utility of FA for intraoperative perfusion assessment during left-sided colectomy and anterior resection at 11 centers in the United States.ResultsA total of 147 patients were enrolled, of whom 139 were eligible for analysis. Diverticulitis (44%), rectal cancer (25%), and colon cancer (21%) were the most prevalent indications for surgery. The mean level of anastomosis was 10 ± 4 cm from the anal verge. Splenic-flexure mobilization was performed in 81% and high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in 61.9% of patients. There was a 99% success rate for FA, and FA changed surgical plans in 11 (8%) patients, with the majority of changes occurring at the time of transection of the proximal margin (7%). Overall morbidity rates were 17%. The anastomotic leak rate was 1.4% (n = 2). There were no anastomotic leaks in the 11 patients who had a change in surgical plan based on intraoperative perfusion assessment with FA.ConclusionsPINPOINT is a safe and feasible tool for intraoperative assessment of tissue perfusion during colorectal resection. There were no anastomotic leaks in patients in whom the anastomosis was revised based on inadequate perfusion with FA

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 < .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

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

Abstract 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

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs 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 AE 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 AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 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 AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

Post-Operative Functional Outcomes in Early Age Onset Rectal Cancer

Background: Impairment of bowel, urogenital and fertility-related function in patients treated for rectal cancer is common. While the rate of rectal cancer in the young (<50 years) is rising, there is little data on functional outcomes in this group. Methods: The REACCT international collaborative database was reviewed and data on eligible patients analysed. Inclusion criteria comprised patients with a histologically confirmed rectal cancer, <50 years of age at time of diagnosis and with documented follow-up including functional outcomes. Results: A total of 1428 (n=1428) patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. Metastatic disease was present at diagnosis in 13%. Of these, 40% received neoadjuvant therapy and 50% adjuvant chemotherapy. The incidence of post-operative major morbidity was 10%. A defunctioning stoma was placed for 621 patients (43%); 534 of these proceeded to elective restoration of bowel continuity. The median follow-up time was 42 months. Of this cohort, a total of 415 (29%) reported persistent impairment of functional outcomes, the most frequent of which was bowel dysfunction (16%), followed by bladder dysfunction (7%), sexual dysfunction (4.5%) and infertility (1%). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of patients with early-onset rectal cancer who undergo surgery report persistent impairment of functional status. Patients should be involved in the discussion regarding their treatment options and potential impact on quality of life. Functional outcomes should be routinely recorded as part of follow up alongside oncological parameters

Idiopathic fistula-in-ano

Fistula-in-ano is the most common form of perineal sepsis. Typically, a fistula includes an internal opening, a track, and an external opening. The external opening might acutely appear following infection and/or an abscess, or more insiduously in a chronic manner. Management includes control of infection, assessment of the fistulous track in relation to the anal sphincter muscle, and finally, definitive treatment of the fistula. Fistulotomy was the most commonly used mode of management, but concerns about post-fistulotomy incontinence prompted the use of sphincter preserving techniques such as advancement flaps, fibrin glue, collagen fistula plug, ligation of the intersphincteric fistula track, and stem cells. Many descriptive and comparative studies have evaluated these different techniques with variable outcomes. The lack of consistent results, level I evidence, or long-term follow-up, as well as the heterogeneity of fistula pathology has prevented a definitive treatment algorithm. This article will review the most commonly available modalities and techniques for managing idiopathic fistula-in-ano