Search

Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort.Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group).389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has affected training opportunities for healthcare professionals partly because face to face courses were cancelled. This study analyzes the results of participation and satisfaction of the AEC Virtual Classroom sessions during the first year.The AEC Virtual Classroom includes a combined format of weekly Webinar broadcast live that can be viewed on a delayed basis in a virtual platform. In this study, the results in its first year are evaluated considering the number of live participants, the delayed views and the global reach; as well as the results of the satisfaction survey in each of the sessions (0-10).From 16/04/2020 to 15/04/2021, 50 sessions of the Virtual Classroom AEC were held. The average scope of the sessions was 509 ± 288 views with a range between 196 and 149. At the times of highest incidence of cases during the pandemic, a decrease in live participants was observed 275 ± 135 vs. 391 ± 233 (P = 0.032). The mean score on the format was 8.46 ± 0.31/10. The best-scored sessions were those of the subject related to coloproctology with a statistically significant difference in the mean score 8.79 ± 0.42 vs. 8.39 ± 0.27 (P = 0.035). 90% of users considered the sessions useful. 97.2% of respondents believe that the sessions should be maintained after the pandemic.The AEC Virtual Classroom has had very good results in the first year, proving to be a useful surgical teaching tool that will foreseeably survive once the pandemic is over.

Most patients with ischemic colitis have a favourable evolution; nevertheless, the location in the right colon has been associated with a worse prognosis. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical presentation and results of right colon ischemic colitis (CICD) with ischemic colitis of other colonic segments (non-CIDC).Retrospective, observational study of patients admitted to our hospital with ischemic colitis between 1993 and 2014, identified through a computerized search of ICD9 codes. They were divided into 2 groups: CICD and non-CICD. Comorbidities, clinical presentation, need for surgery, and mortality were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Statistical significance was established at a value of P 0.05.A total of 204 patients were identified, 61 (30%) with CICD; 61% of CICD patients required surgery compared to 22% of non-CICD patients (P 0.001). Differences in post-surgical mortality (32% vs 55%) and overall mortality (20% vs 15%) were not statistically significant. CICD patients had more commonly unfavourable outcomes than non-CICD patients (61% vs 25%, P 0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for surgery was 5.28 and 4.47 for unfavourable outcomes for patients with CICD.CICD patients have a worse prognosis than non-CICD patients, 5 times more likely to need surgery and 4 times more likely to have unfavourable outcomes.

Our main goal is to describe how to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The first step is to have an idea that will become the hypothesis and a main objective. A bibliographic search should be done to check for clinical interest and originality. Moreover, the study must be feasible and should be finished within 4 years. In order to start the multicenter study, a protocol should be written (in accordance with the SPIRIT guidelines Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), including the design type, sample size and participating hospitals. Randomization is key to the design and, therefore, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines must be followed. However, if the study cannot be randomized, the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs) guidelines are recommended. When the protocol is approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Investigation of the hospital, we ought to create visibility. It is suggested to register the trial on ClincalTrials.gov and submit its publication to indexed magazines. Financial resources are necessary to execute the study and maintain an online database. This allows the registry to be updated and accessible to all the participants in the study. What is more, randomization can be done immediately. And last, but not least, is motivation. Multicentricity equals to participation of all the chosen medical centers. Updating and motivating them by sending a newsletter every 1-3 months keeps participants engaged in the study.

Bariatric surgery has proven to be highly effective in controlling obesity and metabolic syndrome; the results of this surgery are not only expressed in terms of weight loss, but also in terms of resolution of comorbidities, improved quality of life and complications. The different parameters used to measure these outcomes require uniformity and reference patterns. Therefore, it is essential to identify those indicators and quality criteria that are helpful in defining the «best practice» principles in bariatric surgery. In this regard, the Section of Obesity of the Spanish Association of Surgeons, in collaboration with the Spanish Society for Bariatric Surgery (SECO), present as an objective to identify the key points that define «quality» in this type of surgery. We describe the main indicators based on the published literature as well as the criteria for referral of the main comorbidities according to the evidence found and grades of recommendation.