Search

Background: There has been tremendous effort to improve quality following colorectal surgery, including the proliferation of minimally invasive techniques, enhanced recovery protocols, and surgical site infection prevention bundles. While these programs have demonstrated improved postoperative outcomes at the institutional level, it is unclear whether similar benefits are present on a national scale., Methods: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Targeted Colectomy data from 2012 to 2020 were used to identify patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open partial colectomy (CPT 44140, 44204) or low anterior resection (CPT 44145, 44207). Chronological cohorts as well as annual trends in 30-day postoperative outcomes including surgical site infection, venous thromboembolism, and length of stay were assessed using both univariable and multivariable regression analyses., Results: 261,301 patients, 135,876 (52 ​%) female, with a median age of 62 (IQR 53-72) were included. Across all years, MIS partial colectomy was the most common procedure (37 ​%), followed by MIS low anterior resection (27 ​%), open partial colectomy (24 ​%), and open low anterior resection (12 ​%). MIS increased from 59 ​% in 2012-2014 to 66 ​% in 2018-2020 (p ​< ​0.001). During this same period, postoperative length of stay decreased from a median of 5 days (IQR 4-7) in 2012-2014 to 4 days (IQR 3-6) in 2018-2020 (p ​< ​0.001). Superficial surgical site infections decreased from 5.5 ​% in 2012-2014 to 2.9 ​% in 2018-2020 (p ​< ​0.001). Deep surgical site infections similarly decreased from 1.1 ​% to 0.4 ​% between these periods (p ​< ​0.001). Pulmonary embolism also decreased from 0.6 ​% to 0.5 ​% between periods (p ​= ​0.02). 30-day mortality was unchanged at 1.7 ​% between 2012-2014 and 2018-2020 (p ​= ​0.40). After adjustment for ACS NSQIP estimated probability of morbidity and mortality, undergoing a colectomy in 2020 compared to 2012 was associated with a 14 ​% decrease in postoperative length of stay (p ​< ​0.001)., Conclusions: Between 2012 and 2020, significant improvements in postoperative outcomes after colectomy were observed in the United States. These results support the positive impact that the widespread adoption of quality improvement initiatives is having on colorectal patient care nationally., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies., (© 2022. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS).)

Electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring to indicate brain state during anesthesia has become widely available. It remains unclear whether EEG-guided anesthesia influences perioperative outcomes. The sixth Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI-6) brought together an international team of multidisciplinary experts from anesthesiology, biomedical engineering, neurology, and surgery to review the current literature and to develop consensus recommendations on the utility of EEG monitoring during anesthesia. We retrieved a total of 1023 articles addressing the use of EEG monitoring during anesthesia and conducted meta-analyses from 15 trials to determine the effect of EEG-guided anesthesia on the rate of unintentional awareness, postoperative delirium, neurocognitive disorder, and long-term mortality after surgery. After considering current evidence, the working group recommends that EEG monitoring should be considered as part of the vital organ monitors to guide anesthetic management. In addition, we encourage anesthesiologists to be knowledgeable in basic EEG interpretation, such as raw waveform, spectrogram, and processed indices, when using these devices. Current evidence suggests that EEG-guided anesthesia reduces the rate of awareness during total intravenous anesthesia and has similar efficacy in preventing awareness as compared with end-tidal anesthetic gas monitoring. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend the use of EEG monitoring for preventing postoperative delirium, neurocognitive disorder, or postoperative mortality.

Background: The Controlled Substance Act was enacted in efforts to reduce the abuse and misuse of opioid pain relievers. However, the effects of this regulation on the prescribing patterns of providers has yet to be realized., Objective: We sought to identify the changes in opioid-prescribing patterns of an elective colorectal surgical practice as a result of this legislative change., Design: This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Patients were intentionally grouped into group A (January 1, 2012 to October 5, 2014) and group B (October 6, 2014 to December 31, 2016) to capture the period surrounding the new legislation., Settings: We evaluated patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at a single academic center over a 5-year period., Patients: There were 443 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 2012 and 2016., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was total milligram morphine equivalent of pain medication prescribed at discharge. Secondary outcomes included total number of pills prescribed, total milligram morphine equivalent of pain medication at subsequent prescriptions, and numeric postoperative pain scores., Results: Patients in group B were found to have a greater mean total milligram morphine equivalent prescribed at discharge (719 (SD 593) vs 660 (SD 548), p = 0.03), mean total quantity of pills prescribed at discharge (98 (SD 106) vs 87 (SD 63), p = 0.05), and mean total quantity of pills prescribed as subsequent prescriptions (77 (SD 117) vs 68 (SD 83), p = 0.05) compared with group A. On multivariable analysis, group B was a significant predictor of greater total milligram morphine equivalents prescribed at discharge compared with group A (p = 0.01)., Limitations: This study is limited by analysis from a single institution., Conclusions: Efforts to minimize opioid prescriptions after surgery through legislation could result in unintended consequences. Recognition of this result is important to effectively reduce opioid prescriptions after surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B96. UNA CONSECUENCIA NO DESEADA DE UNA NUEVA LEGISLACIÓN DE OPIOIDES: La Ley de Sustancias Controladas se promulgó con el fin de reducir el abuso y el uso indebido de analgésicos opioides. Sin embargo, los efectos de esta regulación en los patrones de prescripción de los proveedores aún no se han realizado.Se intento identificar los cambios en los patrones de prescripción de opioides de una práctica quirúrgica colorrectal electiva como resultado de este cambio legislativo.Este es un estudio retrospectivo de pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva. Los pacientes fueron agrupados intencionalmente en el Grupo A (1 de enero de 2012 al 5 de octubre de 2014) y el Grupo B (6 de octubre de 2014 al 31 de diciembre de 2016) para capturar el período que rodea la nueva legislación.Se evaluaron a los pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva en un solo centro académico durante un período de 5 años.Hubo 443 pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía colorrectal electiva entre 2012-2016.La medida de resultado primaria fue el equivalente de miligramos de morfina total de los analgésicos prescritos al momento del alta. Las medidas de resultado secundarias incluyeron el número total de píldoras prescritas, el equivalente total de miligramos de morfina de la medicación para el dolor en las prescripciones posteriores y las puntuaciones numéricas de dolor postoperatorio.Se encontró que los pacientes en el Grupo B tenían un equivalente de miligramos de morfina total total mayor prescrito al alta (719 [DE 593] v. 660 [DE 548], p = 0.03), cantidad total promedio de píldoras prescritas al alta (98 [SD 106] v. 87 [SD 63], p = 0.05), y la cantidad total promedio de píldoras recetadas como recetas posteriores (77 [SD 117] v. 68 [SD 83], p = 0.05) en comparación con el Grupo A. En análisis multivariable, el Grupo B fue un predictor significativo de mayores equivalentes de morfina en miligramos totales prescritos al alta en comparación con el grupo A (p = 0.01).Este estudio está limitado por el análisis de una sola instituciónLos esfuerzos para minimizar las recetas de opioides después de la cirugía a través de la legislación podrían tener consecuencias no deseadas. El reconocimiento de este resultado es importante para reducir eficazmente las recetas de opioides después de la cirugía. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B96.

Background: Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy negatively impacts long-term survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal enhanced recovery protocols result in decreased complications and length of stay; however, the impact of enhanced recovery on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy remains unknown., Objective: This study aimed to identify factors associated with on-time delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery, hypothesizing that implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol would result in more patients receiving on-time chemotherapy., Design: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing the rate of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy delivery after colorectal cancer resection before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol., Settings: The study was conducted at a large academic medical center., Patients: All of the patients who underwent nonemergent colorectal cancer resections for curative intent from January 2010 to June 2017, excluding patients who had no indication for adjuvant chemotherapy, had received preoperative systemic chemotherapy, or did not have medical oncology records available were included., Main Outcome Measures: Patients before and enhanced recovery were compared, with the rate of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy delivery as the primary outcome. Adjuvant chemotherapy delivery was considered on time if initiated ≤8 weeks postoperatively, and treatment was considered delayed or omitted if initiated >8 weeks postoperatively (delayed) or never received (omitted). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of on-time chemotherapy delivery., Results: A total of 363 patients met inclusion criteria, with 189 patients (52.1%) undergoing surgery after enhanced recovery implementation. Groups differed in laparoscopic approach and median procedure duration, both of which were higher after enhanced recovery. Significantly more patients received on-time chemotherapy after enhanced recovery implementation (p = 0.007). Enhanced recovery was an independent predictor of on-time adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.014)., Limitations: The study was limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized before-and-after design., Conclusions: Enhanced recovery was associated with receiving on-time adjuvant chemotherapy. As prompt initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in colorectal cancer, future investigation of long-term oncologic outcomes is necessary to evaluate the potential impact of enhanced recovery on survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B21. LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN PROTOCOLO DE RECUPERACIÓN ACELERADA SE ASOCIA CON EL INICIO A TIEMPO DE QUIMIOTERAPIA ADYUVANTE EN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL:: El inicio tardío de la quimioterapia adyuvante afecta negativamente la supervivencia a largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Los protocolos de recuperación acelerada colorrectales dan lugar a una disminución de las complicaciones y la duración de estancia hospitalaria; sin embargo, el impacto de la recuperación acelerada en el momento de inicio de quimioterapia adyuvante sigue siendo desconocido.Este estudio tuvo como objetivo identificar los factores asociados con la administración a tiempo de la quimioterapia adyuvante después de la cirugía de cáncer colorrectal, con la hipótesis de que la implementación de un protocolo de recuperación acelerada daría lugar a que más pacientes reciban quimioterapia a tiempo.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que compara la tasa de administración de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo después de la resección del cáncer colorrectal antes y después de la implementación de un protocolo de recuperación acelerada.Centro médico académico grande.Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones de cáncer colorrectal no emergentes con intención curativa desde enero de 2010 hasta junio de 2017, excluyendo a los pacientes que no tenían indicación de quimioterapia adyuvante, que recibieron quimioterapia sistémica preoperatoria o no tenían registros médicos de oncología disponibles.Los pacientes se compararon antes y después de la implementación de la recuperación acelerada, con la tasa de administración de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo como el resultado primario. La administración de quimioterapia adyuvante se consideró a tiempo si se inició ≤8 semanas después de la operación, y el tratamiento se consideró retrasado / omitido si se inició> 8 semanas después de la operación (retrasado) o nunca fue recibido (omitido). La regresión logística multivariable identificó predictores de administración de quimioterapia a tiempo.363 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, con 189 (52.1%) pacientes sometidos a cirugía después de la implementación de recuperación acelerada. Los grupos difirieron en el abordaje laparoscópico y la duración media del procedimiento; ambos factores fueron mayores después de la recuperación acelerada. Significativamente más pacientes recibieron quimioterapia a tiempo después de la implementación de recuperación acelerada (p = 0.007). La recuperación acelerada fue un factor predictivo independiente de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo (p = 0.014).Diseño retrospectivo, tipo ¨antes y después¨ no aleatorizado.La recuperación acelerada se asoció con la recepción de quimioterapia adyuvante a tiempo. Debido a que el inicio rápido de la quimioterapia adyuvante mejora la supervivencia en el cáncer colorrectal, en el futuro será necesario investigar los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo para evaluar el impacto potencial de la recuperación acelerada en la supervivencia. Vea el Resumen en Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B21.

Perioperative malnutrition has proven to be challenging to define, diagnose, and treat. Despite these challenges, it is well known that suboptimal nutritional status is a strong independent predictor of poor postoperative outcomes. Although perioperative caregivers consistently express recognition of the importance of nutrition screening and optimization in the perioperative period, implementation of evidence-based perioperative nutrition guidelines and pathways in the United States has been quite limited and needs to be addressed in surgery-focused recommendations. The second Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts with the objective of providing consensus recommendations on this important topic with the goal of (1) developing guidelines for screening of nutritional status to identify patients at risk for adverse outcomes due to malnutrition; (2) address optimal methods of providing nutritional support and optimizing nutrition status preoperatively; and (3) identifying when and how to optimize nutrition delivery in the postoperative period. Discussion led to strong recommendations for implementation of routine preoperative nutrition screening to identify patients in need of preoperative nutrition optimization. Postoperatively, nutrition delivery should be restarted immediately after surgery. The key role of oral nutrition supplements, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition (implemented in that order) in most perioperative patients was advocated for with protein delivery being more important than total calorie delivery. Finally, the role of often-inadequate nutrition intake in the posthospital setting was discussed, and the role of postdischarge oral nutrition supplements was emphasized.

The primary driver of length of stay after bowel surgery, particularly colorectal surgery, is the time to return of gastrointestinal (GI) function. Traditionally, delayed GI recovery was thought to be a routine and unavoidable consequence of surgery, but this has been shown to be false in the modern era owing to the proliferation of enhanced recovery protocols. However, impaired GI function is still common after colorectal surgery, and the current literature is ambiguous with regard to the definition of postoperative GI dysfunction (POGD), or what is typically referred to as ileus. This persistent ambiguity has impeded the ability to ascertain the true incidence of the condition and study it properly within a research setting. Furthermore, a rational and standardized approach to prevention and treatment of POGD is needed. The second Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts to review the published literature and provide consensus recommendations on this important topic with the goal to (1) develop a rational definition for POGD that can serve as a framework for clinical and research efforts; (2) critically review the evidence behind current prevention strategies and provide consensus recommendations; and (3) develop rational treatment strategies that take into account the wide spectrum of impaired GI function in the postoperative period.

Background: Surgical site infection is common following colorectal surgery, yet the incidence varies widely. CDC criteria include "diagnosis by attending physician," which can be subjective. Alternatively, the ASEPSIS score is an objective scoring system based on the presence of clinical findings., Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the interrater reliability of the ASEPSIS score vs CDC definitions in identifying surgical site infection., Design: This 24-month prospective study used serial photography of the wound. Three attending surgeons independently reviewed blinded photographic/clinical data., Settings: This study was conducted at an academic institution., Patients: Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were selected., Interventions: Surgeons assigned an ASEPSIS score and identified surgical site infection by using CDC definitions. The interrater reliability of ASEPSIS and the CDC criteria were compared by using the κ statistic. These data were also compared with the institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database., Results: One hundred seventy-one patients were included. Four surgical site infections (2.4%) were identified by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Data from the surgeons demonstrated significantly higher yet discrepant rates of infection by the CDC criteria, at 6.2%, 7.4%, and 14.1% with a κ of 0.55 indicating modest interrater agreement. Alternatively, the ASEPSIS assessments demonstrated excellent interrater agreement between surgeons with 96% agreement (2.4%, 2.4%, and 3.6%) and a κ of 0.83., Limitations: This was a single-institution study., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the relatively poor reliability of CDC definitions for surgical site infections in comparison with an objective scoring system. These findings could explain the wide variability in the literature and raise concern for the comparison of institutional surgical site infection rates as a quality indicator. Alternatively, an objective scoring system, like the ASEPSIS score, may yield more reliable measures for comparison.

Background: Colorectal surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS). Recognizing the need for improvement, we implemented an enhanced recovery (ER) protocol for all patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at an academic institution., Study Design: A multidisciplinary team implemented an ER protocol based on: preoperative counseling with active patient participation, carbohydrate loading, multimodal analgesia with avoidance of intravenous opioids, intraoperative goal-directed fluid resuscitation, immediate postoperative feeding, and ambulation. Discharge requirements remained identical throughout. A before and after study design was undertaken comparing patients before (August 2012 to February 2013) and after implementation of an ER protocol (August 2013 to February 2014). Risk stratification was performed using the NSQIP risk calculator to calculate the predicted LOS for each patient based on 23 variables., Results: One hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent surgery within the ER protocol compared with 98 consecutive historical controls (conventional). The risk-adjusted predicted LOS was similar for each group at 5.1 and 5.2 days. Substantial reductions were seen in LOS, morphine equivalents, intravenous fluids, return of bowel function, and overall complications with the ER group. There was a $7,129/patient reduction in direct cost, corresponding to a cost savings of $777,061 in the ER group. Patient satisfaction as measured by Press Ganey improved considerably during the study period., Conclusions: Implementation of an ER protocol led to improved patient satisfaction and substantial reduction in LOS, complication rates, and costs for patients undergoing both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These data demonstrate that small investments in the perioperative environment can lead to large returns., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Intraoperative wound classification is a predictor of postoperative infection. Therefore, accurately assigning the correct classification to a surgical wound is of particular importance. Our institution participates in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), a national outcomes database that collects wound classification for all qualifying operative procedures, and we noted discrepancies when comparing ACS NSQIP wound classification coding with perioperative coding in our electronic medical record. We tested the effectiveness of an intervention that included staff educational sessions, informational posters, and postoperative debriefings on improving the accuracy of documented intraoperative wound classification. The χ(2) test was used to compare proportions of wound classification miscodings before and after educational sessions and debriefings commenced. Baseline data revealed misclassification of wounds occurred 21 per cent (30 of 141) of the time in predominately colorectal procedures performed by two surgeons from April through August 2012. Errors decreased to 9 per cent (13 of 147) from August to December 2012, after our intervention of education sessions with operating room staff and the surgeons incorporating a statement confirming the wound classification at the end of the case debriefing. The χ(2) statistic was 8.7589. The P value was significant at 0.003. Ensuring concordance of classification between the surgeon and nurse during a postprocedure debriefing as well as education of perioperative nursing staff through posters and seminars significantly improved the accuracy of intraoperative wound classification coding.

Background: Increasingly, surgical site infection (SSI) is being tied to quality of care. The incidence of SSI after colorectal surgery differs widely. We hypothesize that it is difficult to define SSI reliably and reproducibly when adhering to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions., Methods: Elective intra-abdominal colorectal procedures via a clean-contaminated incision performed at a single institution between January 1 and May 1, 2011 were queried. Three attending surgeons examined all patients' records retrospectively for documentation of SSI. These data were compared with the institutional National Surgeon Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data with regard to deep and superficial incisional SSI., Results: Seventy-one cases met the inclusion criteria. There were six SSIs identified by NSQIP, representing 8.4% of cases. Review of the three attending surgeons demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of SSI, at 27%, 38%, and 23% (p=0.002). The percent of overall agreement between all reviewers was 82.16 with a kappa of 0.64, indicating only modest inter-rater agreement. Lack of attending surgeon documentation and subjective differences in chart interpretation accounted for most discrepancies between the surgeon and NSQIP SSI capture rates., Conclusions: This study highlights the difficulty in defining SSI in colon and rectal surgery, which oftentimes is subjective and difficult to discern from the medical record. According to these preliminary data from our institution, there is poor reliability between clinical reviewers in defining SSI on the basis of the CDC criteria, which has serious implications. The interpretation of clinical trials may be jeopardized if we cannot define SSI accurately. Furthermore, according to current CDC definitions and infection tracking strategies, these data suggest that the institutional incidence of SSI may not be a reliable measure by which to compare institutions. Better methods for defining SSI should be implemented if these data are made publicly available and tied to performance measures.

Health-care-associated infections (HAIs) are an important cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Currently, one out of every 10 surgical patients develops an HAI. Causes of HAIs vary, but include the transient immunodeficiency associated with surgery,immobility, and the presence of indwelling devices. With rates of antimicrobial resistance increasing, prevention remains the best solution. The investigators review the most frequently encountered health-care-associated infections with an emphasis on preventative strategies. The article addresses issues related to the diagnosis,treatment, and prevention of health-care-related pneumonia,health-care-associated urinary tract infections, and intravascular-catheter-related infections. The article also discusses the utility of hand hygiene policies.