Use of fluorescence imaging and indocyanine green during colorectal surgery: Results of an intercontinental Delphi survey

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green is increasingly being used in colorectal surgery to assess anastomotic perfusion, and to detect sentinel lymph nodes. METHODS: In this 2-round, online, Delphi survey, 35 international experts were asked to vote on 69 statements pertaining to patient preparation and contraindications to fluorescence imaging during colorectal surgery, indications, technical aspects, potential advantages/disadvantages, and effectiveness versus limitations, and training and research. Methodological steps were adopted during survey design to minimize risk of bias. RESULTS: More than 70% consensus was reached on 60 of 69 statements, including moderate-strong consensus regarding fluorescence imaging's value assessing anastomotic perfusion and leak risk, but not on its value mapping sentinel nodes. Similarly, although consensus was reached regarding most technical aspects of its use assessing anastomoses, little consensus was achieved for lymph-node assessments. Evaluating anastomoses, experts agreed that the optimum total indocyanine green dose and timing are 5 to 10 mg and 30 to 60 seconds pre-evaluation, indocyanine green should be dosed milligram/kilogram, lines should be flushed with saline, and indocyanine green can be readministered if bright perfusion is not achieved, although how long surgeons should wait remains unknown. The only consensus achieved for lymph-node assessments was that 2 to 4 injection points are needed. Ninety-six percent and 100% consensus were reached that fluorescence imaging will increase in practice and research over the next decade, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although further research remains necessary, fluorescence imaging appears to have value assessing anastomotic perfusion, but its value for lymph-node mapping remains questionable

Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members

Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes

Characteristics of Early-Onset vs Late-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Review.

The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (younger than 50 years) is rising globally, the reasons for which are unclear. It appears to represent a unique disease process with different clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics compared with late-onset colorectal cancer. Data on oncological outcomes are limited, and sensitivity to conventional neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy regimens appear to be unknown. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature on early-onset colorectal cancer. Within the next decade, it is estimated that 1 in 10 colon cancers and 1 in 4 rectal cancers will be diagnosed in adults younger than 50 years. Potential risk factors include a Westernized diet, obesity, antibiotic usage, and alterations in the gut microbiome. Although genetic predisposition plays a role, most cases are sporadic. The full spectrum of germline and somatic sequence variations implicated remains unknown. Younger patients typically present with descending colonic or rectal cancer, advanced disease stage, and unfavorable histopathological features. Despite being more likely to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, patients with early-onset disease demonstrate comparable oncological outcomes with their older counterparts. The clinicopathological features, underlying molecular profiles, and drivers of early-onset colorectal cancer differ from those of late-onset disease. Standardized, age-specific preventive, screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic strategies are required to optimize outcomes

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

Development of a core descriptor set for Crohn's anal fistula

AIM: Crohn's anal fistula (CAF) is a complex condition, with no agreement on which patient characteristics should be routinely reported in studies. The aim of this study was to develop a core descriptor set of key patient characteristics for reporting in all CAF research. METHOD: Candidate descriptors were generated from published literature and stakeholder suggestions. Colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists and specialist nurses in inflammatory bowel disease took part in three rounds of an international modified Delphi process using nine-point Likert scales to rank the importance of descriptors. Feedback was provided between rounds to allow refinement of the next ratings. Patterns in descriptor voting were assessed using principal component analysis (PCA). Resulting PCA groups were used to organize items in rounds two and three. Consensus descriptors were submitted to a patient panel for feedback. Items meeting predetermined thresholds were included in the final set and ratified at the consensus meeting. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty three respondents from 22 countries completed round one, of whom 67.0% completed round three. Ninety seven descriptors were rated across three rounds in 11 PCA-based groups. Forty descriptors were shortlisted. The consensus meeting ratified a core descriptor set of 37 descriptors within six domains: fistula anatomy, current disease activity and phenotype, risk factors, medical interventions for CAF, surgical interventions for CAF, and patient symptoms and impact on quality of life. CONCLUSION: The core descriptor set proposed for all future CAF research reflects characteristics important to gastroenterologists and surgeons. This might aid transparent reporting in future studies

Outcomes predictor for the patients with stage II and III rectal cancer

Satisfactory outcomes are always the primary goal for rectal cancer treatment. Obesity is an important modifiable factor directly related to both short and long term outcomes. This retrospective study aimed to identify the most reliable method to predict the outcomes in patient with rectal cancer

A pilot assessment of whether external coil MRI is useful to assess evacuatory disorders

This study assessed the value of common surface coil magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with evacuatory disorders including fecal incontinence and constipation. These findings were then compared with those from other standard physiological examinations and/or surgical findings. From July 1996 to June 1997, 14 consecutive patients underwent surface coil MRI for evaluation of either fecal incontinence (n=5) or constipation (n=9). In patients with incontinence we compared the findings from endoanal ultrasound (EAUS), anal MRI, and surgery regarding morphopathological findings of the internal and external anal sphincter components. In constipated patients the findings of videoprography and dynamic pelvic MRI were compared regarding the presence of rectocele, rectoanal intussusception, and sigmoidocele as well as the measurements of anorectal angle and perineal descent. The five incontinent patients were all women, with a median age of 67 years (range 43-77). EAUS revealed an anterior sphincter defect in two patients, a posterior defect in one, and normal anal sphincter images in two. Surgical findings confirmed an anterior external anal sphincter scar in two patients, an internal anal sphincter defect in one, and an anatomically normal anal sphincter in two. In one patient, although anal MRI showed posterior external anal sphincter defect, EAUS and surgery revealed normal external anal sphincter appearance. The accuracy rate between EAUS and anal MRI was only 20%, that between surgery and anal MRI 40%, and that between surgery and EAUS 80%. Thus EAUS was more accurate than anal MRI in incontinent patients. The nine constipated patients were all women, with a mean age of 59 years (range 40-78). Videoproctography revealed an anterior rectocele in six patients, rectoanal intussusception in three, and sigmoidocele in five; no abnormalities were identified in two patients. On dynamic pelvic MRI anterior rectocele was seen in three patients and sigmoidocele in two, and five studies were interpreted as normal. One of the patients underwent sigmoidectomy for sigmoidocele, and five patients were treated by biofeedback. Thus the accuracy rate of dynamic pelvic MRI against videoproctography was 60% for anterior rectocele, 40% for sigmoidocele, and zero for rectoanal intussusception. In conclusion, neither MRI for the evaluation of patients with fecal incontinence nor for the evaluation of patients with constipation added any significant information that would warrant its continued use in these patient groups. Perhaps the more widespread availability of an endoanal coil will alter this conclusion; however, at the present time we cannot routinely endorse the expense, time, or inconvenience of these MRI investigations in patients with these diagnoses. Larger prospective comparative studies are required prior to endorsing the technique