Search

The evolution of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) in colon and rectal surgery has led to the development of same-day discharge (SDD) procedures for selected patients. Early discharge after diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) closure was first described in 2003. However, its widespread adoption remains limited, with SDD accounting for only 3.2% of all DLI closures in 2005-2006, according to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, and rising to just 4.1% by 2016. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of SDD DLI closure with those of DLI closure after the standard ERP.

Although laparoscopic Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the gold standard in restorative proctocolectomy, surgical techniques have experienced minimal changes. In contrast, substantial shifts in perioperative care, marked by the enhanced recovery program (ERP), modifications in steroid use, and a shift to a 3-staged approach, have taken center stage.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the first-line approach for ileocolic resection in Crohn’s disease (CD), and it is safe and feasible, even with severe penetrating CD or redo surgery. While MIS indications are continually broadening, challenging CD cases might still require an open approach. This study aimed to report rate and indications for an upfront open approach in ileocolic resection for CD. Comprehensive perioperative data for all consecutive patients undergoing ileocolic resection for CD between 2014 and 2021 in a high-volume referral center for CD and MIS, were collected retrospectively. Indications for an upfront open approach were reviewed separately by two authors according to the preoperative visit. Among 319 ileocolic resections for CD, 45 (14%) were open and 274 (86%) MIS. Two or more of the below indications were present in 40 patients (89%) in the open group, while only in 6 patients (2%) in the MIS group (p< 0.0001). Indications for upfront open approach were severe penetrating disease (58%), adhesions at previous surgery (47%), history of abdominal sepsis (33%), multifocal and extensive disease (24%), abdominal wall involvement (22%), concomitant open procedures (9%), small bowel dilatation (9%), and anesthesiologic contraindications (4%). MIS was never performed in a patient with abdominal wall involvement, concomitant open procedure, and anesthesiologic contraindication to MIS. This study can help guide patients, physicians, and surgeons. An abdominal wall involvement or the presence of two of the above indications predicts a high surgical complexity and may be considered as a no-go for the MIS approach. These criteria should prompt surgeons to strongly consider an upfront open approach to optimize the perioperative planning and care of these complex patients.

Background: The aim of this study was to identify national utilization trends of robotic surgery for elective colectomy, conversion rates over time, and the specific impact of conversion on postoperative morbidity. Conversion to open represents a hard endpoint for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and is associated with worse outcomes when compared to MIS or even traditional open procedures. Methods: All adult patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic elective colectomy from 2013 to 2018 as reported in the American College of Surgeons Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database were included. National trends of both robotic utilization and conversion rates were analyzed, overall and according to underlying disease (benign disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer), or the presence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2). Demographic and surgical risk factors for surgical conversion to open were identified through multivariable regression analysis. Further assessed were overall and specific postoperative 30-day complications, which were risk adjusted and compared between converted patients and the remaining cohort. Results: Of 66,652 included procedures, 5353 (8.0%) were converted to open. Conversion rates were 8.5% for laparoscopic and 4.9% for robotic surgery (p&lt; 0.0001). A decline in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period was observed overall and for patients with obesity. This trend paralleled an increased utilization of the robotic platform. Several surrogates for advanced disease stages for cancer, diverticulitis, and IBD and prolonged surgical duration were identified as independent risk factors for unplanned conversion, while robotic approach was an independent protective factor (OR 0.44, p&lt; 0.0001). Patients who had unplanned conversion were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 2.36; 95% CI [2.21–2.51]), length of hospital stay ≥ 6 days (OR 2.86; 95% CI [2.67–3.05], and 30-day mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI [1.72–3.02]). Conclusion: This nationwide study identified a decreasing trend in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period, both overall and in patients with obesity, paralleling increased utilization of the robotic platform. Unplanned conversion to open was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications.

As robotic surgery continues to disseminate into the field of colon and rectal surgery, there is a growing interest in the utilization of intracorporeal anastomosis to potentially improve surgical outcomes. The purpoe of this study was to compare feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections performed with completely intracorporeal anastomosis (CICA) technique to the traditional extracorporeal assisted anastomosis (ECAA) technique. Consecutive series of patients who underwent elective robotic sigmoid or low anterior resections for benign or malignant disease utilizes either CICA or ECAA between August 2017 and November 2019. Surgical complications were assessed until 30 postoperative days and compared between the two groups. A total of 160 patients were identified; 73 (45.6%) in the CICA group and 87 (54.4%) in the ECAA group. Most of the procedures were performed for malignancy (76%). Estimated blood loss was lower in the CICA group (80.7 mL vs. 110.2 mL; p= 0.048), while operative times were longer (5.9 ± SD hours vs. 4.9 ± SD hours; p=  < 0.001). Overall conversion rate was 1.9%, with no conversions in the CICA group. Overall complications occurred in 54 patients (33.8%) with 13 (8.3%) representing major complications. There were no significant differences in 30 day outcomes between the two groups. This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections with CICA. Outcomes for robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections are encouraging regardless of anastomotic technique (CICA vs ECAA).

Objective: There is limited literature on the impact of the extent of resection on short-term outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in an elective setting. The aim of this study was to better understand the impact of approach and extent of resection on short-term outcomes for patients undergoing total proctocolectomy (TPC) and subtotal colectomy (STC) for UC. Methods: Patients with UC who underwent elective TPC or STC were captured from the ACS-NSQIP® 2011–2018 database and divided into four cohorts: Open TPC (O-TPC), Laparoscopic TPC (L-STC), Open STC (O-STC), and Laparoscopic STC (L-STC). Baseline and perioperative variables were compared between the four groups alongside 30-day mortality and 30-day complication rates. Results: Of 3387 patients, 368 (10.9%) underwent O-STC, 406 (12%) underwent O-TPC, 1958 (58%) underwent L-STC, and 655 (19%) underwent L-TPC. Overall rate of prolonged length of stay (LOS) was 27% and 9% needed a blood transfusion. There was no difference in the risk of complications between open TPC and open STC. Those who had open surgery had a higher risk of complications and prolonged LOS. Patients who had L-TPC had prolonged LOS compared to patients who had L-STC, but less compared to those who had O-STC. Conclusion: Elective surgery for UC is associated with high rates of prolonged LOS and blood transfusion despite MIS approaches. Short-term outcomes and LOS are more impacted by the operative approach than the extent of resection. Despite this laparoscopic TPC has higher rates of prolonged LOS when compared to laparoscopic STC.

Although much focus is placed on oncological outcomes for rectal cancer, it is important to assess quality of life after surgery of which sexual function is an important component. This study set about to describe the prevalence of sexual dysfunction by resection type and gender among patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer, usingretrospective analysis. All English-speaking living patients who underwent surgery for stage I–III rectal cancer with curative intent between 2012 and 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database at our institution. Eligible patients were invited to complete either the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) or the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Primary outcomes were overall rates of sexual dysfunction, defined as more than one standard deviation below the mean of the normal population for each tool. A total of 147 patients responded, yielding a response rate of 38%. The overall sexual dysfunction rate was 70% at a median time from surgery of 38 months. Sixty-two men (62%) and 41 women (87%) reported overall scores that fell below one standard deviation of the population mean. There was no significant difference in sexual dysfunction for both male and female patients between low anterior resection, coloanal anastomosis, or abdominoperineal resection.. The present study revealed a high rate of sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery, particularly in female patients. This study serves as a reminder to surgeons and their teams to openly discuss the impact of surgery on sexual function and ensure adequate consent and appropriate peri-operative management strategies. The retrospective nature of the analysis is the limitation of this study.

•This educational intervention answers recent calls for further trainee instruction in coping with errors and adverse events in the operating room.•We describe the development and implementation of an evidence-based interoperative coping curriculum over the course of 2 didactic conference sessions.•Initial feedback from residents was uniformly positive, describing need for and value of this content.

Prior to 2015 residents in our Accreditation Council for Graduation Medical Education (ACGME) colon and rectal surgery training program were in charge of managing, with faculty oversight, the outpatient anorectal clinic at our institution. Starting in 2015 advanced practice providers (APPs) working in the division assumed management of the clinic. The effect of APPs on ACGME resident index diagnostic case volumes has not been explored. Herein we examine ACGME case log graduate statistics to determine if the inclusion of APPs into our anorectal clinic practice has negatively affected resident index diagnostic anorectal case volumes.