Search

The aim was to determine whether on-call case volumes differ amongst colorectal surgeons, and what cases are performed on-call in an academic colorectal surgery practice. The on-call schedule for the year 2021 of a colorectal surgery practice was analyzed. Details of the case origin and operative details were collected. Average cases performed per call per surgeon were compared. Ten surgeons were included, and average cases per call ranged from .5 to 1.4 with 1.0 the overall average ( P = .007). Analyzing individual pairs, differences existed between the 2 busiest and the least busy on-call surgeon (both P < .05). Most patients operated on-call were admitted via the emergency department (59%), and the most common operations were exams under anesthesia (39%) and bowel resections (33%). On average, 1 on-call case was performed per day. Surgeon on-call volume was similar aside from the busiest and least busy on-call surgeons., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Aim: There is no universally accepted treatment consensus for haemorrhoids, and thus, management has been individualized all over the world. This study was conducted to assess a global view of how surgeons manage haemorrhoids., Methods: The research panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) developed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire evaluating surgeons' experience, volume and treatment approaches to haemorrhoids. The 44 multiple-choice questionnaire was available for one month via the ISUCRS email database and the social media platforms Viber and WhatsApp., Results: The survey was completed by 1005 surgeons from 103 countries; 931 (92.6%) were in active practice, 819 (81.5%) were between 30 and 60 years of age, and 822 (81.8%) were male. Detailed patient history (92.9%), perineal inspection (91.2%), and digital rectal examination (91.1%) were the most common assessment methods. For internal haemorrhoids, 924 (91.9%) of participants graded them I-IV, with the degree of haemorrhoids being the most important factor considered to determine the treatment approach (76.3%). The most common nonprocedural/conservative treatment consisted of increased daily fibre intake (86.9%), increased water intake (82.7%), and normalization of bowel habits/toilet training (74.4%). Conservative treatment was the first-line treatment for symptomatic first (92.5%), second (72.4%) and third (47.3%) degree haemorrhoids; however, surgery was the first-line treatment for symptomatic fourth degree haemorrhoids (77.6%). Rubber band ligation was the second-line treatment in first (50.7%) and second (47.2%) degree haemorrhoids, whereas surgery was the second-line treatment in third (82.9%) and fourth (16.7%) degree symptomatic haemorrhoids. Rubber band ligation was performed in the office by 645(64.2%) of the participants. The most common surgical procedure performed for haemorrhoids was an excisional haemorrhoidectomy for both internal (87.1%) and external (89.7%) haemorrhoids - with 716 (71.2%) of participants removing 1, 2 or 3 sectors as necessary., Conclusion: Although there is no global haemorrhoidal treatment consensus, there are many practice similarities among the different cultures, resources, volume and experience of surgeons around the world. With additional studies, a consensus statement could potentially be developed., (© 2024 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: There has been concern among colon and rectal surgery residency programs in the United States that IPAA procedures have been decreasing, but evidence is limited., Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the number of IPAAs performed by colon and rectal surgery residents in the United States and analyze the distribution of these cases on a national level., Design: Retrospective., Settings: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Case Log National Data Reports were used to evaluate the number of IPAAs performed by residents from 2005 to 2021. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients undergoing these procedures from 2005 to 2019., Patients: All IPAA procedures regardless of indication., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the number of IPAAs performed by residents yearly. The secondary outcome was the national distribution of these procedures., Results: Among colon and rectal surgery residents, case log data revealed an increase in mean and total number of IPAAs from 2005 to 2013, followed by a decline in both metrics after 2013. Despite the decrease, the mean number of cases per resident remained fewer than 6 between 2011 and 2021. A weighted national estimate of 48,532 IPAA patients were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. A significant decrease was noted in the number of IPAAs after 2015 that persisted through 2019. There was a significant decrease in rural and urban nonteaching hospitals (from 2.1% to 1.6% and 25.6% to 4.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) and an increase in urbanteaching hospitals (from 72.4% to 94.1%; p < 0.001)., Limitations: Nonrandomized retrospective study design., Conclusions: Despite the recent increase in the percentage of IPAAs performed at urban academic centers, there has been a decrease in cases performed by colon and rectal surgery residents. This can have significant implications for residents who graduate without adequate experience in performing this complex procedure independently, as well as training programs that may face challenges with maintaining accreditation. See Video Abstract., Tendencias Y Distribucin De La Anastomosis Anal Con Bolsa Ileal En Los Estados Unidos Se Est Volviendo Ms Difcil De Encontrar En La Capacitacin De Residencia En Ciruga De Colon Y Recto: ANTECEDENTES:Ha habido preocupación entre los programas de capacitación de residencia en cirugía de colon y recto en los Estados Unidos porque los procedimientos de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal han estado disminuyendo; sin embargo, la evidencia es limitada.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal realizadas por residentes de cirugía de colon y recto en los Estados Unidos y examinar la distribución de estos casos a nivel nacional.DISEÑO:Retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Se utilizaron los informes de datos nacionales del registro de casos de educación médica de posgrado del Consejo de Acreditación para examinar el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal realizadas por residentes de 2005 a 2021. Se utilizó la base de datos de muestra nacional de pacientes hospitalizados para identificar a todos los pacientes sometidos a estos procedimientos de 2005 a 2019.PACIENTES:Todos los procedimientos de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal independientemente de la indicación.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:El resultado primario es el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal realizadas por los residentes anualmente. El resultado secundario es la distribución nacional de estos procedimientos.RESULTADOS:Entre los residentes de cirugía de colon y recto, los datos de los registros de casos revelaron un aumento en el número medio y total de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal de 2005 a 2013, seguido de una disminución en ambas métricas después de 2013. A pesar de la disminución, el número medio de casos por El residente permaneció >6 entre 2011 y 2021. Se identificó una estimación nacional ponderada de 48 532 pacientes con anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal en la base de datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados. Se observó una disminución significativa en el número de anastomosis anales con bolsa ileal después de 2015 que persistió hasta 2019. Hubo una disminución significativa en los hospitales no docentes rurales y urbanos (del 2,1% al 1,6% y del 25,6% al 4,3% respectivamente, p < 0,001) y un aumento en los hospitales universitarios urbanos (del 72,4% al 94,1%, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo no aleatorizado.CONCLUSIÓN:A pesar del reciente aumento en el porcentaje de anastomosis anal con bolsa ileal realizadas en centros académicos urbanos, ha habido una disminución en los casos realizados por residentes de cirugía de colon y recto. Esto puede tener implicaciones significativas para los residentes que se gradúan sin la experiencia adecuada en la realización de este complejo procedimiento de forma independiente, así como para los programas de capacitación que pueden enfrentar desafíos para mantener la acreditación. (Traduccion-AI-generated)., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2024.)

Introduction: Physicians have gravitated toward larger group practice arrangements in recent years. However, consolidation trends in colorectal surgery have yet to be well described. Our objective was to assess current trends in practice consolidation within colorectal surgery and evaluate underlying demographic trends including age, gender, and geography., Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using the Center for Medicare Services National Downloadable File from 2015 to 2022. Colorectal surgeons were categorized by practice size and by region, gender, and age., Results: From 2015 to 2022, the number of colorectal surgeons in the United States increased from 1369 to 1621 (+18.4%), while the practices with which they were affiliated remained relatively stable (693-721, +4.0%). The proportion of colorectal surgeons in groups of 1-2 members fell from 18.9% to 10.7%. Conversely, those in groups of 500+ members grew from 26.5% to 45.2% (linear trend P < 0.001). The midwest region demonstrated the highest degree of consolidation. Affiliations with group practices of 500+ members saw large increases from both female and male surgeons (+148.9% and +86.9%, respectively). New surgeons joining the field since 2015 overwhelmingly practice in larger groups (5.3% in groups of 1-2, 50.1% in groups of 500+)., Conclusions: Colorectal surgeons are shifting toward larger practice affiliations. Although this change is happening across all demographic groups, it appears unevenly distributed across geography, gender, and age. New surgeons are preferentially joining large group practices., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health equity in pain management during the perioperative period continues to be a topic of interest. The authors evaluated the association of race and ethnicity with regional anesthesia in patients who underwent colorectal surgery and characterized trends in regional anesthesia., Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2020, the research team identified patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Associations between race and ethnicity and use of regional anesthesia were estimated using logistic regression models., Results: The final sample size was 292,797, of which 15.6% (n = 45,784) received regional anesthesia. The unadjusted rates of regional anesthesia for race and ethnicity were 15.7% white, 15.1% Black, 12.8% Asian, 29.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, 16.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 12.4% Hispanic. Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.96, p < 0.001) and Asian (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.80, p < 0.001) patients had lower odds of regional anesthesia compared to white patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of regional anesthesia compared to non-Hispanic patients (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.75, p < 0.001). There was a significant annual increase in regional anesthesia from 2015 to 2020 for all racial and ethnic cohorts (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: There was an annual increase in the use of regional anesthesia, yet Black and Asian patients (compared to whites) and Hispanics (compared to non-Hispanics) were less likely to receive regional anesthesia for colorectal surgery. These differences suggest that there are racial and ethnic differences in regional anesthesia use for colorectal surgery., (Copyright © 2024 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) is one of the most common anal disorders in the adult population. Despite that, treatment options differ among different countries and specialists, even for the same grade of HD. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences in patient demographics, surgeon preference for the treatment option, outcomes as well as patient satisfaction rate for the procedure using an office-based or surgical approach for the treatment of HD among International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) and European Society of Coloproctology (ECSP) fellows., Method: A panel of the ISUCRS and ECSP members will answer questions that are included in a questionnaire about the treatment of HD. The questionnaire will be distributed electronically to ISUCRS and ECSP fellows included in our database and will remain open from 1 April 2024 to 31 May 2024., Conclusion: This multicentre, global prospective audit will be delivered by consultant colorectal and general surgeons as well as trainees. The data obtained will lead to a better understanding of the incidence of HD, treatment and diagnostic possibilities. This snapshot audit will be hypothesis generating and inform areas the need future prospective study., (© 2024 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: The use of synoptic reporting has been shown to improve documentation of critical information and provide added value related to data access and extraction, data reliability, relevant detail, and completeness of information. Surgeon acceptance and adoption of synoptic reports has lagged behind other specialties., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing a synoptic operative report., Design: This study was a mixed-methods process evaluation including surveys and qualitative interviews., Settings: This study focused on colorectal surgery practices across the United States., Patients: Twenty-eight board-certified colorectal surgeons were included., Interventions: The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was implemented., Main Outcome Measures: Acceptability, feasibility, and usability were measured by Likert-type survey questions and followed up with individual interviews to elicit experiences with implementation as well as motivations and barriers to use., Results: Among all study participants, 28 surgeons completed the electronic survey (76% response rate) and 21 (57%) completed the telephone interview. Mean usability was 4.14 (range, 1-5; SE, 0.15), mean feasibility was 3.90 (SE, 0.15), and acceptability was 3.98 (SE, 0.18). Participants indicated that substantial administrative and technical support were necessary but not always available for implementation, and many were frustrated by the need to change their workflow., Limitations: Most surgeon participants were male, white, had >12 years in practice, and used Epic electronic medical record systems. Therefore, they may not represent the perspectives of all US colon and rectal surgeons. In addition, as the synoptic operative report is implemented more broadly across the United States, it will be important to consider variations in the process by electronic medical record system., Conclusions: The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was easy to implement and incorporate into workflow, in general, but surgeons remained concerned about additional burden without immediate and tangible value. Despite recognizing benefits, many participants indicated they only implemented the synoptic operative report because it was mandated by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735MOTIVACIONES Y BARRERAS HACIA LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN INFORME OPERATIVO SINÓPTICO DE CÁNCER RECTAL: UNA EVALUACIÓN DEL PROCESOANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que el uso de informes sinópticos mejora la documentación de información crítica y proporciona un valor agregado relacionado con el acceso y extracción de datos, la confiabilidad de los datos, los detalles relevantes y la integridad de la información. La aceptación y adopción de informes sinópticos por parte de los cirujanos se ha quedado rezagada con respecto a otras especialidades.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el proceso de implementación de un informe operativo sinóptico.DISEÑO:Evaluación de procesos de métodos mixtos que incluyen encuestas y entrevistas cualitativas.AJUSTES:Prácticas de cirugía colorrectal en los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Veintiocho cirujanos colorrectales certificados por la junta.INTERVENCIONES:Implementación del informe operatorio sinóptico de cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Aceptabilidad, viabilidad y usabilidad medidas por preguntas de encuestas tipo Likert y seguidas con entrevistas individuales para obtener experiencias con la implementación, así como motivaciones y barreras para el uso.RESULTADOS:Entre todos los participantes del estudio, 28 cirujanos completaron la encuesta electrónica (tasa de respuesta del 76%) y 21 (57%) completaron la entrevista telefónica. La usabilidad media fue 4,14 (rango = 1-5, error estándar (EE) = 0,15), la factibilidad media fue 3,90 (EE = 0,15) y la aceptabilidad fue 3,98 (EE = 0,18). Los participantes indicaron que se necesitaba un apoyo administrativo y técnico sustancial, pero que no siempre estaba disponible para la implementación y muchos se sintieron frustrados por la necesidad de cambiar su flujo de trabajo.LIMITACIONES:La mayoría de los cirujanos participantes eran hombres, blancos, tenían >12 años en la práctica y usaban sistemas de registros médicos electrónicos de Epic. Por lo tanto, es posible que no representen las perspectivas de todos los cirujanos de colon y recto de EE. UU. Además, a medida que el informe operativo sinóptico se implemente de manera más amplia en los EE. UU., Será importante considerar las variaciones en el proceso por sistema EMR.CONCLUSIONES:El informe quirúrgico sinóptico para el cáncer de recto fue en general fácil de implementar e incorporar en el flujo de trabajo, pero los cirujanos seguían preocupados por la carga adicional sin valor inmediato y tangible. A pesar de reconocer los beneficios, muchos participantes indicaron que solo implementaron el informe operativo sinóptico porque era un mandato del Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer de Recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735 (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo)., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.)

Background: Surveillance is the cornerstone of surgical site infection prevention programs. The validity of the data collection and awareness of vulnerability to inter-rater variation is crucial for correct interpretation and use of surveillance data. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance after colorectal surgery in the Netherlands., Methods: In this multicentre prospective observational study, seven Dutch hospitals performed SSI surveillance after colorectal surgeries performed in 2018 and/or 2019. When executing the surveillance, a local case assessment was performed to calculate the overall percentage agreement between raters within hospitals. Additionally, two case-vignette assessments were performed to estimate intra-rater and inter-rater reliability by calculating a weighted Cohen's Kappa and Fleiss' Kappa coefficient. To estimate the validity, answers of the two case-vignettes questionnaires were compared with the answers of an external medical panel., Results: 1111 colorectal surgeries were included in this study with an overall SSI incidence of 8.8% (n = 98). From the local case assessment it was estimated that the overall percent agreement between raters within a hospital was good (mean 95%, range 90-100%). The Cohen's Kappa estimated for the intra-rater reliability of case-vignette review varied from 0.73 to 1.00, indicating substantial to perfect agreement. The inter-rater reliability within hospitals showed more variation, with Kappa estimates ranging between 0.61 and 0.94. In total, 87.9% of the answers given by the raters were in accordance with the medical panel., Conclusions: This study showed that raters were consistent in their SSI-ascertainment (good reliability), but improvements can be made regarding the accuracy (moderate validity). Accuracy of surveillance may be improved by providing regular training, adapting definitions to reduce subjectivity, and by supporting surveillance through automation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Joseph M. Mathews' study at St. Mark's Hospital (London) in the 1877 to 1878 winter was followed shortly by a landmark move toward specialization in the United States: Mathews' heading of a Special Commission on Rectal Diseases appointed at the 23rd Annual Session of the Kentucky State Medical Society, held April 2 to 4, 1878. Various "rectal specialists," under various makeshift titles, were lecturing and publishing by the mid-1890s. The world's first proctologic journal, published between 1894 and 1898, was Mathews' Medical Quarterly, from its inception interpellating a community of colleagues., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Surgical site infections (SSI) pose significant morbidity after colorectal surgery. We sought to document current practices in colorectal surgery SSI prevention in British Columbia (BC). Reporting the current provincial landscape on SSI prevention helps to understand the foundation upon which improvements can take place. We surveyed all BC surgeons performing elective colon and rectal resections, and 97 surveys were completed (60% response rate). Eighty-six per cent of respondent hospitals tracked SSI rates. The reported superficial SSI was less than 5% and the anastomotic leak/organ space rate was less than 10%. All respondents gave preoperative prophylactic antibiotics, with 24% continuing antibiotics postoperatively; 62% are using oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and 29% use MBP without OAB. Areas for improvement include OAB with MBP and discontinuing prophylactic antibiotics postoperatively, as recommended by the World Health Organization., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: While elective surgery was shut down in most settings during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic, some referral centers were designated as surgery hubs. We sought to investigate how the pandemic scenario impacted the quality of a long-established enhanced recovery protocol colorectal surgery program in 2 referral centers, designated as colorectal surgery hubs, located in the epicentral Italian regions hardest hit by the pandemic., Methods: We compared short-term outcomes of patients undergoing major colorectal surgery with a long-established enhanced recovery protocol during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak occurred in 2020 (group A) with the correspondent timeframe of 2019 (group B). Primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality, duration of stay, and readmission rate., Results: One hundred and thirty-six patients underwent major colorectal surgery in group A and 173 in group B. Postoperative complications and readmission rate were comparable between the 2 groups. Oncologic case-log was predominant in group A compared with group B (73.5 vs 61%; P = .01). A significantly shorter overall duration of stay was found in group A (P < .001). Uncomplicated patients of group A had a shorter duration of stay when compared with uncomplicated patients of group B (P = .008)., Conclusion: Under special precautionary measures, major colorectal surgery can be undertaken on elective basis even during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic with reasonable results. A reduction of duration of stay within a long-established enhanced recovery protocol colorectal surgery program was observed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic occurred in 2020 in comparison with the correspondent timeframe of the previous year without compromising short-term outcomes. The pandemic uncovered the positive impact of patients' commitment to reducing duration of stay as the empowered risk awareness likely promoted their compliance to the enhanced recovery protocol., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transversus abdominis plane blocks are increasingly used to achieve opioid-sparing analgesia after colorectal surgery. Traditionally, bupivacaine was the long-acting analgesic of choice, but the addition of dexamethasone and/or epinephrine to bupivacaine may extend block duration. Liposomal bupivacaine has also been suggested to achieve an extended analgesia duration of 72 hours but is significantly more expensive., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare pain control between laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane blocks using liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine with epinephrine and dexamethasone., Design: This was a parallel-group, single-institution, randomized clinical trial., Settings: The study was conducted at a single tertiary medical center., Patients: Consecutive patients between October 2018 to October 2019, ages 18 to 90 years, undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery with multimodal analgesia were included., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine or bupivacaine with epinephrine and dexamethasone., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was total oral morphine equivalents administered in the first 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, time to ambulation and solid diet, hospital length of stay, and complications., Results: A total of 102 patients (50 men) with a median age of 42 years (interquartile range, 29-60 y) consented and were randomly assigned. The primary end point, total oral morphine equivalents administered in the first 48 hours, was not significantly different between the liposomal bupivacaine group (median = 69 mg) and the bupivacaine with epinephrine and dexamethasone group (median = 47 mg; difference in medians = 22 mg, (95% CI, -17 to 49 mg); p = 0.60). There were no significant differences in pain scores, time to ambulation, time to diet tolerance, time to bowel movement, length of stay, overall complications, or readmission rate between groups. There were no treatment-related adverse outcomes., Limitations: This study was not placebo controlled or blinded., Conclusions: This first randomized trial comparing laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine or bupivacaine with epinephrine and dexamethasone showed that a liposomal bupivacaine block does not provide superior or extended analgesia in the era of standardized multimodal analgesia protocols.See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B533., Estudio Prospectivo Y Randomizado De Bloqueo Del Plano Muscular Transverso Del Abdomen Realizado Por El Cirujano Con Bupivacana Versus Bupivacana Liposomal Estudio Tingle: ANTECEDENTES:El bloqueo anestésico del plano muscular transverso del abdomen se utiliza cada vez más para lograr una analgesia con menos consumo de opioides después de cirugía colorrectal. Tradicionalmente, la Bupivacaína era el analgésico de acción prolongada de elección, pero al agregarse Dexametasona y/o Adrenalina a la Bupivacaína se puede prolongar la duración del bloqueo. También se ha propuesto que la Bupivacaína liposomal logra una duración prolongada de la analgesia de 72 horas, pero es significativamente más cara.OBJETIVO:Comparar el control del dolor entre bloqueo laparoscópico del plano de los transversos del abdomen usando Bupivacaína liposomal versus Bupivacaína con Adrenalina y Dexametasona.DISEÑO:Estudio clínico prospectivo y randomizado de una sola institución en grupos paralelos.AJUSTE:Centro médico terciario único.PACIENTES:Todos aquellos pacientes entre 18 y 90 años sometidos a cirugía colorrectal mínimamente invasiva con analgesia multimodal, entre octubre de 2018 a octubre de 2019 incluidos de manera consecutiva.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron seleccionados aleatoriamente 1:1 para recibir un bloqueo laparoscópico del plano de los transversos del abdomen con Bupivacaína liposomal o Bupivacaína con Adrenalina y Dexametasona.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el total de equivalentes de morfina oral administradas en las primeras 48 horas después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron puntuaciones de dolor, inicio de dieta sólida, tiempo de inicio a la deambulación, la estadía hospitalaria y las complicaciones.RESULTADOS:Un total de 102 pacientes (50 hombres) con una mediana de edad de 42 años (IQR 29-60) fueron incluidos aleatoriamente. El criterio de valoración principal, equivalentes de morfina oral total administrada en las primeras 48 horas, no fue significativamente diferente entre el grupo de Bupivacaína liposomal (mediana = 69 mg) y el grupo de Bupivacaína con Adrenalina y Dexametasona (mediana = 47 mg; diferencia en medianas = 22 mg, IC del 95% [-17] - 49 mg, p = 0,60). No hubo diferencias significativas en las puntuaciones de dolor, tiempo de inicio a la deambulación, el tiempo de tolerancia a la dieta sólida, el tiempo hasta el primer evacuado intestinal, la duración de la estadía hospitalaria, las complicaciones generales o la tasa de readmisión entre los grupos. No hubo resultados adversos relacionados con el tratamiento.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio no fue controlado con placebo ni de manera cegada.CONCLUSIONES:Este primer estudio prospectivo y randomizado que comparó el bloqueo del plano de los músculos transversos del abdomen por vía laparoscópica, utilizando Bupivacaína liposomal o Bupivacaína con Adrenalina y Dexametasona, demostró que el bloqueo de Bupivacaína liposomal no proporciona ni mejor analgesia ni un efecto mas prolongado.Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B533., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Background: The current opioid crisis has motivated surgeons to critically evaluate ways to balance postoperative pain while decreasing opioid use and thereby reducing opioids available for community diversion. The longest incision for robotic colorectal surgery is the specimen extraction site incision. Intracorporeal techniques allow specimen extraction to be at any location., Objective: This study was designed to determine whether the Pfannenstiel location is associated with less pain and opioid use than other abdominal wall specimen extraction sites., Design: This was a retrospective cohort study., Settings: The study was conducted with a prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database (July 2018 through October 2019)., Patients: Patients with enhanced recovery robotic colorectal resections with specimen extraction were included., Main Outcome Measures: Propensity score weighting was used to derive adjusted rates for numeric pain scores, inpatient opioid use, opioids prescribed at discharge, opioid refills after discharge, and other related outcomes. For comparing outcomes between groups, p values were calculated using weighted χ2, Fisher exact, and t tests., Results: There were 137 cases (70.9%) with Pfannenstiel extraction site incisions and 56 (29.0%) at other locations (7 midline, 49 off-midline). There was no significant difference in transversus abdominis plane blocks and epidural analgesia use between groups. Numeric pain scores, overall benefit of analgesia scores, inpatient postoperative opioid use, opioids prescribed at discharge and taken after discharge, and opioid refills were not significantly different between groups. Nonopioid pain analgesics (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and gabapentin) prescribed at discharge were significantly less in the Pfannenstiel group (90.19% vs 98.45%; p = 0.006). Postoperative complications and readmissions were not different between groups., Limitations: This study was conducted at a single institution., Conclusions: The Pfannenstiel incision as the specimen extraction site choice in minimally invasive surgery is associated with similar postoperative pain and opioid use as extraction sites in other locations for patients having robotic colorectal resections. Specimen extraction sites may be chosen based on patient factors other than pain and opioid use. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B495., Dolor Postoperatorio Despus De Vas De Recuperacin Mejorada En Ciruga Robtica De Colon Y Recto Importa El Lugar De Extraccin De La Muestra: ANTECEDENTES:La actual crisis de opioides ha motivado a los cirujanos a evaluar críticamente, formas para equilibrar el dolor postoperatorio, disminuyendo el uso de opioides y por lo tanto, disminuyendo opioides disponibles para el desvío comunitario. La incisión más amplia en cirugía colorrectal robótica, es la incisión del sitio de extracción de la muestra. Las técnicas intracorpóreas permiten que la extracción de la muestra se realice en cualquier sitio.OBJETIVO:El estudio fue diseñado para determinar si la ubicación del Pfannenstiel está asociada con menos dolor y uso de opioides, a otros sitios de extracción de la muestra en la pared abdominal.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Estudio de base de datos de cirugía colorrectal mantenida prospectivamente (7/2018 a 10/2019).PACIENTES:Se incluyeron resecciones robóticas colorrectales con recuperación mejorada y extracción de muestras.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizó la ponderación del puntaje de propensión para derivar las tasas ajustadas para los puntajes numéricos de dolor, uso de opioides en pacientes hospitalizados, opioides recetados al alta, recarga de opioides después del alta y otros resultados relacionados. Para comparar los resultados entre los grupos, los valores p se calcularon utilizando chi-cuadrado ponderado, exacto de Fisher y pruebas t.RESULTADOS:Hubo 137 (70,9%) casos con incisiones en el sitio de extracción de Pfannenstiel y 56 (29,0%) en otras localizaciones (7 en la línea media, 49 fuera de la línea media). No hubo diferencias significativas en los bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen y el uso de analgesia epidural entre los grupos. Las puntuaciones numéricas de dolor, puntuaciones de beneficio general de la analgesia, uso postoperatorio de opioides en pacientes hospitalizados, opioides recetados al alta y tomados después del alta, y las recargas de opioides, no fueron significativamente diferentes entre los grupos. Los analgésicos no opioides (acetaminofén, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, gabapentina) prescritos al alta, fueron significativamente menores en el grupo de Pfannenstiel (90,19% frente a 98,45%, p = 0,006). Las complicaciones postoperatorias y los reingresos, no fueron diferentes entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Una sola institución.CONCLUSIÓN:La incisión de Pfannenstiel como sitio de extracción de la muestra en cirugía mínimamente invasiva, se asocia con dolor postoperatorio y uso de opioides similar, a otros sitios de extracción en pacientes sometidos a resecciones robóticas colorrectales. Sitios de extracción de la muestra, pueden elegirse en función de factores del paciente distintos al dolor y uso de opioides. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B495.)., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Background: Multimodal, narcotic-sparing analgesic strategies are an important part of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Within such protocols, regional anesthetics have proven to be superior to narcotics., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the transversus abdominis plane block within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol on length of stay., Design: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colorectal surgery in 2015 to 2016 was completed. The primary end points for this analysis were total length of stay and total narcotics consumed during hospitalization. Length of stay and total narcotic use were compared for patients who received a transversus abdominis plane block versus those that did not., Data Source: The data were obtained from the data warehouse of a university teaching hospital., Settings: This study took place at a university teaching hospital., Patients: The patients were 18 years or older., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes measured were length of stay and the total narcotics used., Results: A total of 347 patients underwent colorectal procedures under the enhanced recovery protocol. Among these, 186 (54%) received a transversus abdominis plane block. Overall, the mean length of stay was 5.8 days (SD ±5.6), and median length of stay was 4 days. These values compare to a mean length of stay of 9.6 days and median length of stay of 7 days before implementing the enhanced recovery protocol. Patients who received a transversus abdominis plane block had a mean length of stay of 5.1 days compared to 6.6 days for those who did not receive one (p < 0.01). Patients who received a transversus abdominis plane block consumed 736.5 morphine milligram equivalents of opioids compared to 1150.3 morphine milligram equivalents of opioid consumed by those without a transversus abdominis plane block (p < 0.05), a 36% decrease in opioid use. When comparing patients who had a mean length of stay of 4 days with those whose length of stay was >4 days, there was an 80% decrease in opioid use. The readmission rate was 7.8%., Limitations: The lack of randomization of patients was a limitation of this study., Conclusion: The use of transversus abdominis plane block in the setting of a well-structured enhanced recovery protocol was associated with a statistically significant decrease in length of stay by 1.5 days and a 36% decrease in narcotic use. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B432., Impacto De La Anestesia Del Plano Muscular De Los Transversos Abdominales En La Estada Dentro Un Protocolo Eras: ANTECEDENTES:La estrategia analgésica multimodal que consume poco medicamento de tipo narcótico es parte importante en los protocolos de recuperación mejorada postoperatoria. Dentro de dichos protocolos, los anestésicos regionales han demostrado ser superiores a la administración de medicamentos narcóticos.OBJETIVO:Estudiar el impacto del bloqueo del plano muscular de los transversos del abdomen sobre la duración de la estadía dentro de un protocolo de recuperación mejorada postoperatoria.DISEÑO:Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía colorrectal entre 2015-2016. Los criterios principales de valoración en el presente análisis fueron la duración total de la estadía y el total de medicamentos narcóticos consumidos durante la hospitalización. Se comparó la duración de la estadía y el uso total de narcóticos en los pacientes que recibieron un bloqueo anestésico del plano muscular de los transversos del abdomen con los que no lo recibieron.FUENTE DE DATOS:Banco de datos de un hospital universitario docente.AMBIENTE:Hospital Universitario Docente.PACIENTES:Adultos desde los 18 años o mayores.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Duración de la estadía, cantidad total de medicamentos narcóticos administrados.RESULTADOS:Un total de 347 pacientes se sometieron a procedimientos colorrectales bajo el protocolo ERAS. Entre ellos, 186 (54%) recibieron un bloqueo del plano muscular de los transversos del abdomen. En la globalidad, la duración media de la estadía fué de 5,8 días (DE ± 5,6) y la duración media de la estadía fué de 4 días. Estos resultados fueron comparados con la estadía media de 9,6 días y una estadía media de 7 días antes de implementar el protocolo ERAS. Los pacientes que recibieron un bloqueo del plano muscular de los transversos del abdomen tuvieron una estadía media de 5,1 días en comparación con los 6,6 días de los que no recibieron el mencionado bloqueo (p <0,01). Los pacientes que recibieron el bloqueo del plano muscular consumieron 736,5 miligramos de morfina o su equivalente en opioides, comparados con los 1150,3 de aquellos sin bloqueo del plano muscular (p <0,05) lo que significó una disminución del 36% en la administración de opioides. Al comparar los pacientes que tuvieron una estadía media de 4 días con aquellos cuya estadía fue mayor a 4 días, se evidenció una disminución en el 80% de la administración de opioides. La tasa de reingreso fue del 7,8%.LIMITACIONES:Estudio sin sin aleatorización de pacientes.CONCLUSIÓN:El bloqueo anestésico del plano muscular de los transversos del abdomen dentro un contexto protocolar tipo ERAS o de recuperación mejorada bien estructurada, se asoció con la disminución estadísticamente significativa de la duración de la estadía en 1,5 días y una disminución del 36% en la administración de medicamentos narcóticos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B432., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2020.)

Background: There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England., Methods: Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated., Findings: As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53-71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89-95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8-34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19-42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17-76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020., Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England., Funding: Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A trimodal prehabilitation protocol was designed with the aim to evaluate whether it contributes to reducing postoperative morbidity, to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation on overall hospital stay, and to analyze the evolution of functional capacity before and after surgery., Methods: A single-center observational study of patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgery with curative intent after a trimodal prehabilitation protocol. We collected data for postoperative morbidity according to the Comprehensive Complication Index and hospital stay, which were compared with a historical matrix. Functional capacity data were also collected before and after the application of the prehabilitation protocol., Results: Compared to the historical population, the overall Comprehensive Complication Index was reduced from 13.2 to 11.5, which was statistically significant. Analyzed by morbidity type, all decreased in percentage, although without achieving significance (surgical site infection from 11.7% to 8.4%, nosocomial infection 15.8 to 10% and medical morbidity 8.6% to 4.2%). The overall hospital stay went from 6 to 4 days, and the decrease in the percentage of patients who prepared at home was statistically significant in both cases., Conclusions: Trimodal prehabilitation can contribute to lowering the postoperative morbidity and overall hospital stay of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery., (Copyright © 2020 AEC. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of the study was to examine an approach for selecting small sets of diagnosis codes with high prediction performance in large datasets of electronic medical records., Study Design and Setting: This was a modeling study using national hospital and mortality records for patients with myocardial infarction (n = 200,119), hip fracture (n = 169,646), or colorectal cancer surgery (n = 56,515) in England in 2015-2017. One-year mortality was predicted from ICD-10 codes recorded for at least 0.5% of patients using logistic regression ('full' models). An approximation method was used to select fewer codes that explained at least 95% of variation in full model predictions ('reduced' models)., Results: One-year mortality was 17.2% (34,520) after myocardial infarction, 27.2% (46,115) after hip fracture, and 9.3% (5,273) after colorectal surgery. Full models included 202, 257, and 209 ICD-10 codes in these populations. C-statistics for these models were 0.884 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.882, 0.886), 0.798 (0.795, 0.800), and 0.810 (0.804, 0.817). Reduced models included 18, 33, and 41 codes and had c-statistics of 0.874 (95% CI 0.872, 0.876), 0.791 (0.788, 0.793), and 0.807 (0.801, 0.813). Performance was also similar when measured using Brier scores. All models were well calibrated., Conclusion: Our approach selected small sets of diagnosis codes that predicted patient outcomes comparably to large, comprehensive sets of codes., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Proctology is one of the surgical specialties that suffered the most during COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from a cross-sectional worldwide web survey, we aimed to snapshot the current status of proctologic practice in Italy with differences between three macro areas (North, Centre, South). Specialists affiliated to renowned scientific societies with an interest in coloproctology were invited to join a 27-item survey. Predictive power of respondents' and hospitals' demographics on the change of status of surgical activities was calculated. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04392245). Of 299 respondents from Italy, 94 (40%) practiced in the North, 60 (25%) in the Centrer and 82 (35%) in the South and Islands. The majority were men (79%), at consultant level (70%), with a mean age of 46.5 years, practicing in academic hospitals (39%), where a dedicated proctologist was readily available (68%). Southern respondents were more at risk of infection compared to those from the Center (OR, 3.30; 95%CI 1.46; 7.47, P = 0.004), as were males (OR, 2.64; 95%CI 1.09; 6.37, P = 0.031) and those who routinely tested patients prior to surgery (OR, 3.02; 95%CI 1.39; 6.53, P = 0.005). The likelihood of ongoing surgical practice was higher in the South (OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.75; 2.46, P = 0.304) and in centers that were not fully dedicated to COVID-19 care (OR 4.00, 95%CI 1.88; 8.50, P < 0.001). The results of this survey highlight important factors contributing to the deadlock of proctologic practice in Italy and may inform the development of future management strategies.

Background: Thirty-day readmissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays are common after colorectal surgery (9%-25%, 8%-12%, and 3%-5%), yet it is unknown to what extent planned postdischarge care can decrease the frequency of emergency department visits., Objective: This study's aim was to determine whether early follow-up with the surgical team reduces 30-day emergency department visits., Design: This retrospective cohort study used a central data repository of clinical and administrative data for 2013 through 2018., Setting: This study was conducted in a large statewide health care system (10 affiliated hospitals, >300 practices)., Patients: All adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery were included unless they had a length of stay <1 day or died during the index hospitalization., Intervention: Early (<10 days after discharge) versus late (≥10 days) follow-up at the outpatient surgery clinic, or no outpatient surgery clinic follow-up, was assessed., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measured was the time to 30-day postdischarge emergency department visit., Results: Our cohort included 3442 patients undergoing colorectal surgery; 38% of patients had an early clinic visit. Overall, 11% had an emergency department encounter between 11 and 30 days after discharge. Those with early follow-up had decreased emergency department encounters (adjusted HR 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.22). An early clinic visit within 10 days, compared to 14 days, prevented an additional 142 emergency department encounters. Nationwide, this could potentially prevent 8433 unplanned visits each year with an estimated cost savings of $49 million annually., Limitations: We used retrospective data and were unable to assess for health care utilization outside our health system., Conclusions: Early follow-up within 10 days of adult colorectal surgery is associated with decreased subsequent emergency department encounters. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B330. EL SEGUIMIENTO TEMPRANO DESPUÉS DE LA CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL REDUCE LAS VISITAS AL SERVICIO DE URGENCIAS POSTERIOR AL ALTA: Los readmisión a los treinta días, las visitas al servicio de urgencias y las estancias de observación son comunes después de la cirugía colorrectal, 9-25%, 8-12% y 3-5%, respectivamente. Sin embargo, se desconoce en qué medida la atención planificada posterior al alta puede disminuir la frecuencia de las visitas al servicio de urgencias.Determinar si el seguimiento temprano con el equipo quirúrgico reduce las visitas a 30 días al servicio de urgencias.Este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizó un depósito central de datos clínicos y administrativos para 2013-2018.Gran sistema de salud estatal (10 hospitales afiliados,> 300 consultorios).Se incluyeron todos los pacientes adultos de cirugía colorrectal a menos que tuvieran una estadía <1 día o murieran durante el índice de hospitalización.Temprano (<10 días después del alta) versus tardío (≥10 días) o sin seguimiento en la clínica de cirugía ambulatoria.Tiempo para la visita al servicio de urgencias a 30 días después del alta.Nuestra cohorte incluyó 3.442 pacientes de cirugía colorrectal; El 38% de los pacientes tuvieron una visita temprana a clínica. En total, el 11% tuvo un encuentro con el servicio de urgencias entre 11 y 30 días después de ser dado de alta. Aquellos con seguimiento temprano disminuyeron las visitas al servicio de urgencias (HR 0,13; IC del 95%: 0,08 a 0,22). Además, una visita temprana a la clínica en un plazo de 10 días, en comparación con 14 días, evitó 142 encuentros adicionales en el servicio de urgencias. A nivel nacional, esto podría prevenir 8.433 visitas no planificadas cada año con un ahorro estimado de $ 49 millones anuales.Utilizamos datos retrospectivos y no pudimos evaluar la utilización de la atención médica fuera de nuestro sistema de salud.El seguimiento temprano dentro de los 10 días de la cirugía colorrectal en adultos se asocia con una disminución de los encuentros posteriores en el servicio de urgencias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B330. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Background and Objective: The impact of surgical indication on compliance with enhanced recovery program (ERP) and on outcomes has never been assessed. This study aims to assess the impact of surgical indication (malignant vs benign) on postoperative outcomes and ERP compliance., Methods: A multicenter nationwide database was analyzed. Patients who underwent colorectal surgery for benign disease and those who underwent colorectal surgery for cancer were compared. Inclusion criteria were elective colorectal resection with anastomosis. ERP components, postoperative morbidity, and hospital length of hospital stay data were collected., Results: Among the 6472 patients registered in the database between October 2012 and June 2018, 4528 patients were included; 2647 in the malignant group and 1881 in the benign group. The ERP compliance over 70% was not different between groups. Postoperative morbidity rate was higher in the malignant group (22.5% vs 19.3%; P = .009) but not confirmed in multivariate analysis. Patients in the malignant group were more often readmitted after discharge, 6.6% vs 4.6% (P = .004). The mean LOS was 6.3 ± 5.0 days in the malignant group and 5.4 ± 4.7 days in the benign group (P < .001)., Conclusions: Indication for colorectal surgery did not significantly influence peri-operative management and postoperative major complications, in patients managed within an enhanced recovery program., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: To interview extraordinary women who have made recent significant contributions to the field of colorectal surgery., Design: The authors asked some of the many extraordinary women who have made significant contributions to the field of colorectal surgery to answer several questions. These women were selected from many potential candidates based upon their extraordinary recent contributions to the field of colorectal surgery. These thought leaders were asked about their contributions to colorectal surgery, their mentors, whether they had any women as role models, and, lastly, what they would tell their younger selves. The study was structured to recognize these women for their remarkable recent contributions to colorectal surgery, and we wished to encourage women to pursue leadership in colorectal surgery including the allied fields of colorectal pathology and colorectal imaging. Furthermore, the authors hoped to inspire male colorectal surgeons to actively mentor and help the career development of women colorectal surgeons. The potential limitations of the study include the fact that there are many more well-deserving women who could have been included in the sample survey but, because of space constraints, were not invited., Conclusion: Women in colorectal surgery and in the allied specialties of colorectal pathology and colorectal radiology have made many recent major significant contributions to colorectal surgery. The expectation is that the volume and frequency of such contributions as well as the number of women making these contributions should further significantly increase with time., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus that emerged in December 2019 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the sudden national reorganization of health care systems and changes in the delivery of health care globally. The purpose of our study was to use a survey to assess the global effects of COVID-19 on colorectal practice and surgery., Materials and Methods: A panel of International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 22 questions, which were included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in the ISUCRS database and was advertised on social media sites. The questionnaire remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020., Results: A total of 287 surgeons completed the survey. Of the 287 respondents, 90% were colorectal specialists or general surgeons with an interest in colorectal disease. COVID-19 had affected the practice of 96% of the surgeons, and 52% were now using telemedicine. Also, 66% reported that elective colorectal cancer surgery could proceed but with perioperative precautions. Of the 287 respondents, 19.5% reported that the use of personal protective equipment was the most important perioperative precaution. However, personal protective equipment was only provided by 9.1% of hospitals. In addition, 64% of surgeons were offering minimally invasive surgery. However, 44% reported that enough information was not available regarding the safety of the loss of intra-abdominal carbon dioxide gas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, 61% of the surgeons were prepared to defer elective colorectal cancer surgery, with 29% willing to defer for ≤ 8 weeks., Conclusion: The results from our survey have demonstrated that, globally, COVID-19 has affected the ability of colorectal surgeons to offer care to their patients. We have also discussed suggestions for various practical adaptation strategies for use during the recovery period., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Life expectancy and incidence of cancer among older adults are increasing. The aim of this study was to assess whether routinely used nursing screening tools can predict surgical outcomes in older adults with colorectal cancer., Methods: Data of patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery at Rabin Medical Center during the years 2014-2016 were collected retrospectively. Patients were divided into study group (age 80-89 y), and control group (age 60-69 y) for comparing surgical outcomes and six-month mortality. In the study group, screening tool scores were evaluated as potential predictors of surgical outcomes. These included Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Admission Norton Scale Scores (ANSS), Morse Fall Scale (MFS), and Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI)., Results: The study group consisted of 77 patients, and the control group consisted of 129 patients. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were similar in both groups. Nursing screening tools did not predict immediate postoperative outcomes in the study group. MUST and CCI were predictors for six-month mortality. CCI score was 9.43±2.44 in those who died within six months from surgery compared to 7.07 ±1.61 in those who were alive after six months (p<0.05). Post-operative complications were not associated with increased 30-day mortality. Advanced grade complications were associated with an increased six-month mortality (RR=1.37, 95% CI 0.95-1.98, p=0.013)., Conclusion: Different screening tools for high-risk older adults who are candidates for surgery have been developed, with the caveat of necessitating skilled physicians and resources such as time. Routinely used nursing screening tools may be helpful in better patient selection and informed decision making. These tools, specifically MUST and CCI who were found to predict six-month survival, can be used to additionally identify high-risk patients by the nursing staff and promote further evaluation. This can be a valuable tool in multidisciplinary and patient-centered care., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest for this work., (© 2020 Cooper et al.)

Background: There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery., Data Sources: Three major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery., Study Selection: Articles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison., Main Outcome Measures: This was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties., Results: From 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%)., Limitations: The study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study., Conclusions: Patient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.

Background: Three-dimensional (3d) laparoscopy has been introduced to enhance depth perception and facilitate surgical operations. The aim of this study was to compare cognitive load during 3d and 2d laparoscopic procedures., Methods: Two subjective questionnaires (the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire and the NASA task load index) were used to prospectively collect data regarding cognitive load in surgeons performing 2d and 3d laparoscopic colorectal resections. Moreover, the perioperative results of 3d and 2d laparoscopic operations were analyzed., Results: A total of 313 patients were included: 82 in the 2d group and 231 in the 3d group. The NASA TLX results did not reveal significantly major cognitive load differences in the 3d group compared with the 2d group; the SSQ results were better in the 3d group than in the 2d group in terms of general discomfort, whereas difficulty concentrating, difficulty focusing, and fatigue were more frequent in 3d operations than in 2d operations (p = 0.001-0.038). The results of age, sex, and ASA score were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.299-0.374). The median operative time showed no statistically significant difference between the 3d and 2d groups (median, IQR, 2d 150 min [120-180]-3d 160 min [130-190] p = 0.611). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of severe complications between patients in the 3d group and in the 2d group (2d 7 [8.54%] vs 3d 21 [9.1%], p = 0.271). The median hospitalization time and the reoperation rate showed no difference between the 2d and 3d operations (p = 0.417-0.843)., Conclusion: The NASA TLX did not reveal a significant difference in cognitive load between the 2d and 3d groups, whereas data reported by the SSQ showed a mild risk of cognitive load in the 3d group. Furthermore, 3d laparoscopic surgery revealed the same postoperative results as 2d standard laparoscopy.

Background: Prescription opioid, sedative, and antidepressant use has been on the rise. The effect of these medications on outcomes in colorectal surgery has not been established., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative prescription opioid, sedative, and antidepressant use on postoperative outcomes following colorectal surgery., Design: This study was a retrospective database and medical record review., Settings: This study was conducted at University of Kentucky utilizing the local American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database., Patients: All patients ≥18 years of age who underwent colorectal resection for all indications, excluding trauma, between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were included., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes measured were the rates of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality., Results: Of 1201 patients, 30.2% used opioids, 18.4% used sedatives, and 28.3% used antidepressants preoperatively. Users of any medication class had higher ASA classification, rates of dyspnea, and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than nonusers. Opioid users also had higher rates of ostomy creation, contaminated wound classification, prolonged operation time, and postoperative transfusion. Postoperatively, patients had higher rates of intra-abdominal infection (opioids: 21.5% vs 15.2%, p = 0.009; sedatives: 23.1% vs 15.7%, p = 0.01; antidepressants: 22.4% vs 15.0%, p = 0.003) and respiratory failure (opioids: 11.0% vs 6.3%, p = 0.007; sedatives: 12.2% vs 6.7%, p = 0.008; antidepressants: 10.9% vs 6.5%, p = 0.02). Reported opioid or sedative users had a prolonged hospital length of stay of 2 days (p < 0.001) compared with nonusers. After adjustment for all predictors of poor outcome, opioid and sedative use was associated with increased 30-day morbidity and mortality following colorectal procedures (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.07-1.91 and OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.08)., Limitations: This study was a retrospective review and a single-institution study, and it had unmeasured confounders., Conclusions: We identified that patient-reported prescription opioid and sedative use is associated with higher 30-day composite adverse outcomes in colorectal resections, highlighting the need for the evaluation of opioid and sedative use as a component of the preoperative risk stratification. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B226. REVISIÓN RETROSPECTIVA: EL USO DE OPIOIDES, SEDANTES O ANTIDEPRESORES EN EL PREOPERATORIO SE ASOCIAN CON MALOS RESULTADOS EN CIRUGÍA COLORECTAL: El uso de opioides, sedantes y antidepresores esta en aumento. No se ha establecido el efecto de estos medicamentos en los resultados de la cirugía colorrectal.Evaluar el impacto del uso preoperatorio de opioides, sedantes y antidepresores en los resultados después de una cirugía colorrectal.Base de datos retrospectiva y revisión de registros médicos.Este estudio se realizó en la Universidad de Kentucky utilizando la base de datos del Proyecto de Mejora de Calidad Quirúrgica Nacional del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos.Todos los pacientes ≥ 18 años que se sometieron a una resección colorrectal por diversas indicaciones, excluyendo los traumas, entre el 1 de Enero de 2013 y el 31 de Diciembre de 2016.Tasas de morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias a los 30 días.De 1201 pacientes, 30.2% usaron opioides, 18.4% usaron sedantes y 28.3% usaron antidepresores antes de la cirugía. Los pacientes tratados con cualquiera de los medicamentos mencionados, presentaban un ASA mas elevado, tasas de disnea y EPOC mas graves en comparación con pacientes sin tratamiento previo. Los consumidores de opioides también tuvieron tasas más altas de creación de ostomías, clasificación mas alta de heridas contaminadas, un tiempo de operación prolongado y transfusión postoperatoria mayor. Después de la cirugía los pacientes que tuvieron tasas más altas de infección intraabdominal (opioides: 21.5% vs 15.2%, p = 0.009, sedantes: 23.1% vs 15.7%, p = 0.01, antidepresivos: 22.4% vs 15.0%, p = 0.003) e insuficiencia respiratoria (opioides: 11.0% vs 6.3%, p = 0.007, sedantes: 12.2% vs 6.7%, p = 0.008, antidepresivos: 10.9% vs 6.5%, p = 0.02). Los consumidores de opioides o sedantes tuvieron una estadía hospitalaria prolongada de más de 2 días (p <0.001) en comparación con los consumidores. Después de haber realizado el ajuste de todos los predictores de mal pronóstico, el uso de opioides y sedantes se asoció con una mayor morbilidad y mortalidad a los 30 días después de cirugía colorrectal (OR 1.43 [IC 95% 1.07-1.91] y OR 1.48 [IC 95% 1.05-2.08], respectivamente)Revisión retrospectiva, estudio de una sola institución, factores de confusión no evaluados.Identificamos que el consumo de opiáceos y sedantes recetados a los pacientes se asocian con resultados adversos complejos más allá de 30 días en casos de resección colorrectal, destacando la necesidad de su respectiva evaluación como componentes de la estratificación de riesgo preoperatorio. Consulte Video Resumen http://links.lww.com/DCR/B226. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Patient Reported Outcome and Experience Measures (PROMs and PREMs) play an increasingly important role in monitoring the quality of the oncological pathway. The aim of this study is to describe the case of five hospitals a year after the adoption of PROMs and PREMs for robotic oncological colorectal surgery in Tuscany and to investigate how the clinicians can impact the process of implementation and the efficacy of such measures. We used 14 months of data from the five robotic centers in Tuscany. Above all, the physician's personal motivation to improve the treatment of patients, the teamwork, and the possibility to use data for research purposes proved to be the essential factors for their engagement and the successful implementation of patient reported measures. Physicians play a key role in the adoption of systematic PROMs and PREMs. The higher their level of engagement, the higher the collection success, both in terms of number of patients enrolled and response rates. Moreover, the collection of patient reported measures may become part of physicians' daily practice and may lead to a change in their relationship and communication with patients, as clinicians accept to have their job reviewed and are not afraid to be evaluated by their patients., (© 2019 The Authors. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Accelerated recovery protocols in colorectal surgery have enhanced the perioperative cares optimizing recovery in this group of patients. A reduction in surgical stress and therefore early hospital discharge and lower morbidity is pursued, however, the literature offers few outcomes regarding its application in developing countries., Objective: to analyze short- and medium-term outcomes of the application of an accelerated recovery protocol in a terciary care hospital in Argentina. Methods: In the period between January 2015 and March 2017 patients were included prospectively and consecutively with indication of elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery and under strict follow-up according to the protocol created by the institution. Patients older than 80 years, ASA IV, emergency surgeries and conventional approach were excluded. We analyzed demographic data, diagnosis of surgery, type of intervention, hospital stay, complications, readmissions and reinterventions at 30 postoperative days., Results: Sixty-four patients with a mean age of 62 years were included. The mean hospitalization was 4.9 days, with 10.9% readmissions and 4.7% of reinterventions. We recorded 69% of the patients whit not complications at all and 5 major complications (8%) ., Conclusion: Based on the adaptation of the international guidelines to our health reality, it is feasible to create an accelerated recovery protocol applicable in our country, with a low complication rate and early discharge., (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba)

Background: The effect of an oral antibiotic preparation prior to colorectal surgery was first examined and exalted in the 1973 paper by Nichols et al. Since this commencement, enthusiasm for the oral antibiotic regimen has waxed and waned reflecting the literature focused on this topic over the past 40 years. Polling colorectal surgeons of define current practices has been performed at intervals throughout the years and has demonstrated a trend to decline in the practice. The most recent publication surveying U.S. practices was in 2010, which reported a minority, 36%, use of oral antibiotics prior to elective colorectal surgery; a marked downtrend from the 88% use described in 1990. Since this last survey, the colorectal surgery community has performed considerable research examining the benefit of oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation. This manuscript evaluates the current use of oral antibiotics in colorectal surgery in the U.S. and how practice trends have developed in response to current recommendations in the literature. Methods: An electronic survey was created and distributed to U.S. colorectal surgeons to evaluate current opinions and practice trends. A total of 359 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded. A review of the recent literature pertaining to pre-operative bowel practices and outcomes was performed to compare with current practices. Results: A significant majority (83.2%) of respondents use pre-operative oral antibiotics routinely, and 98.6% routinely use mechanical bowel preparation. The use of a combination of parenteral antibiotics, oral antibiotics, and mechanical bowel preparation is reported by 79.3%. The most commonly employed oral antibiotic regimen is neomycin and metronidazole. The most common mechanical bowel preparation is polyethylene glycol (PEG). The most common parenteral antibiotics are cefazolin and metronidazole. There was no statistically significant difference in this practice by geographic region, Board-certified status, or practice setting. Conclusion: The majority of colorectal surgeons employ a combination of oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation, and parenteral antibiotics prior to colorectal surgery. This is consistent across geographic regions, despite Board certification status or practice setting, and is reflective of the recommendations based on recent literature.

Purpose: Live surgical demonstrations are considered an effective educational tool providing a chance for trainees to observe a real-time decision-making process of expert surgeons. No data exists evaluating the impact of live surgical demonstrations on the outcomes of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. This study evaluates perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery in the setting of live surgical demonstrations., Methods: Patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery which was performed as live surgical demonstrations (the study group) performed between 2006 and 2018 were reviewed. These patients were case-matched with those undergoing operations in routine practice (the control group). The study and control group were compared for intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes., Results: Thirty-nine live surgery cases in the study group were case-matched with its thirty-nine counterparts as the control group. Operating time was longer (200 vs 165 min; p = 0.002) and estimated intraoperative blood loss was higher in the study group (100 vs 55 ml; p = 0.008). Patients in the study group stayed longer in the hospital (6 vs 5 days; p = 0.001). While conversion (n = 4 vs n = 1, p = 0.358) and intraoperative complications (n = 6 vs n = 2, p = 0.2) were more frequent in the study group, these outcomes did not reach statistical significance. Overall complications were higher in the study group (n = 22 vs n = 9, p = 0.003). One patient underwent a reoperation due to postoperative bleeding, and one mortality occurred in the live surgery group., Conclusions: Live surgical demonstrations in minimally invasive colorectal surgery seem to be associated with increased risk of operative morbidity.

Aim: The optimal surgical treatment of splenic flexure neoplasm is still not well defined. Extended right hemicolectomy (ERH) and left colic resection (LCR) have been proposed but conclusive evidence concerning postoperative morbidity and oncological results is lacking. The aim of this study was to analyse the short-term outcomes after surgery for splenic flexure cancer with regard to surgical procedure and surgeon's specialty., Methods: This was a multicentre study on patients who underwent surgery for primary colon cancer of the splenic flexure., Results: From 2004 to 2015, 324 patients fulfilled the criteria for inclusion into the study; 270 (83.4%) had elective surgery while 54 (16.6%) had emergency resection: 158 (48.8%) underwent ERH and 166 (51.2%) LCR; 176 (54.3%) procedures were performed by colorectal surgeons, 148 (46.7%) by general surgeons. In the ERH group a significantly higher rate of emergency operations was carried out (P = 0.005). After elective surgery, no significant differences between ERH and LCR concerning 30-day mortality (3.3% vs 2.0%) and the need for reoperation (10.6% vs 7.4%) were found. Nodal harvesting was significantly higher in the ERH and colorectal surgeon groups in any clinical scenario. At multivariate analysis, age and smoking habit were predictive of the need for reoperation and major morbidity while the general surgeon group showed a higher risk of anastomotic failure (OR = 1.92; P = 0.168)., Conclusion: We analysed the largest series in literature of curative resections for splenic flexure tumours. The optimal procedure still remains debatable as ERH and LCR appear to achieve comparable short-term outcomes. Surgeon's specialty seems to positively affect patient's outcomes., (Colorectal Disease © 2019 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: Mortality and complication rates after surgery for colon cancer are high, especially after emergency procedures. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the importance of the formal competence of surgeons for survival and morbidity., Method: The Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry prospectively records data on patients diagnosed with cancer within the colon and rectum. A cohort of patients operated on for colon cancer between 2007 and 2010 were followed 5 years after surgery. Data on postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term survival were compared with regard to formal competency of the most senior surgeon attending the procedure., Results: This analysis includes 13 365 patients operated on for colon cancer, including 10 434 elective procedures and 2931 emergency cases. The overall 5-year survival was higher for those operated on by subspecialist colorectal surgeons compared with general surgeons (60% vs 48%; P < 0.001). Five-year survival after elective surgery was 63% vs 55% (P < 0.001) and 35% vs 31% (P < 0.05) after emergency procedures when performed by colorectal surgeons compared with general surgeons. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 3% after surgery performed by colorectal surgeons compared with 7% when performed by general surgeons. Mortality at 90 days was 6% after surgery performed by colorectal surgeons compared with 11% for patients operated on by general surgeons (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Subspecialization in colorectal surgery is associated with better outcome for patients operated on for colon cancer, and effort should be made to increase the availability of colorectal surgeons for both acute and elective colon cancer surgery., (© 2019 The Authors. Colorectal Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence, patterns and prognostic factors of recurrence in patients with complicated colon cancer who had emergency surgery within 24 h of admission., Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed on patients with obstructing or perforated colon cancer having resection with curative intent between 1996 and 2014 at a single center. Data were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. Patients who had rectal cancer, iatrogenic endoscopic perforation, stage IV disease, palliative surgery, a colonic stent or decompressive colostomy were excluded., Results: The study included 393 patients. Obstruction was observed in 320 patients (81.4%) and perforation in 73 (18.6%). Hartmann's procedure was more frequently performed by general surgeons (7.5% vs 23.3%; p = 0.023). 30-day postoperative mortality was 13.5% (53/393), including 47 (14.7%) obstructed and 6 (8.2%) perforated patients. Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) occurred in 87 patients (22.1%), including 68 (21.2%) of obstructed and 19 (26.0%) of perforated patients. Anastomotic dehiscence was diagnosed in 52 of 329 (15.8%) patients with primary anastomosis and was higher in the obstructing group than in the perforated group (17.4% vs 7.6%). There was a significantly higher anastomotic dehiscence rate after procedures performed by general surgeons when compared with those performed by colorectal surgeons (10.3% vs 21.3%; p = 0.005; OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.4-5.9). With a median follow-up of 6 years, the recurrence rate was 30.1% (67.4% distant, 22.8% local, 9.8% both). Overall and cancer-related survivals were 68.7% and 77.8%, respectively. The presence of positive nodes, male gender, anastomotic dehiscence and diffuse peritonitis were independent predictors for local recurrence while type of surgeon (general) was an independent factor for distant recurrence., Conclusions: Male gender, diffuse peritonitis, positive lymph nodes, type of surgeon and postoperative anastomotic dehiscence significantly influence recurrence of colorectal cancer in this series.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the association between Twitter exposure and the number of citations for coloproctology articles., Method: Original articles from journals using Twitter between June 2015 and May 2016 were evaluated for the following characteristics: publishing journal; article subject; study design; nationality, speciality and affiliation of the author(s); and reference on Twitter. Citation data for these articles were retrieved from Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com) in January 2018. We performed a univariate analysis using these data followed by a multivariate, logistic regression analysis to search for factors associated with a high citation level, which was defined as accrual of more than five citations., Results: Out of six coloproctology journals listed on the InCites JCR database, three (Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease and Techniques in Coloproctology) used Twitter, where 200 (49.5%) out of a total of 404 articles had been featured. Citation rates of articles that featured on Twitter were significantly higher than those that did not (11.4 ± 9.2 vs 4.1 ± 3.1, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, Twitter exposure (OR 8.6, P = 0.001), European Union nationality (OR 2.4, P = 0.004), Colorectal Disease journal (OR 3.3, P = 0.005) and systematic review articles (OR 3.4, P = 0.009) were associated with higher citation levels., Conclusion: Article exposure on Twitter was strongly associated with a high citation level. Medical communities should encourage journals as well as physicians to actively utilize social media to expedite the spread of new ideas and ultimately benefit medical society as a whole., (Colorectal Disease © 2019 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Introduction: Recent studies have demonstrated that the protective effect of colonoscopy against colorectal cancer is lower in the proximal colon. Proximal serrated polyps, including sessile serrated adenomas and proximal hyperplastic polyps, can be frequently missed and pose a risk of interval cancers., Aim: To investigate the overall adenoma detection rate (ADR) and the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) among academic gastroenterologists, community gastroenterologists, and colorectal surgeons from a single institution, all of whom have received formal training in colonoscopy during their fellowship., Methods: All complete screening colonoscopies for patients aged 50 or older with a good to excellent bowel preparation performed by different endoscopists at Medstar Washington Hospital Center (Washington, DC) from July 2015 to December 2017 were reviewed. Pathology reports of the resected polyps were manually reviewed., Results: A total of 2850 screening colonoscopies meeting the inclusion criteria were performed by 18 endoscopists (6 academic, 7 community, and 5 colorectal surgeons). There was no significant difference in the mean ADR among the three groups of endoscopists: academic gastroenterologists, community gastroenterologists, and colorectal surgeons (40.3% vs 36.0% vs 39.6%, respectively). However, academic gastroenterologists had a significantly higher PSPDR compared to community gastroenterologists or colorectal surgeons (12.3% vs 5.4% vs 4.5%, respectively, ANOVA p = 0.006)., Conclusion: Our novel data show that academic gastroenterologists had a significantly higher PSPDR compared to community gastroenterologists or colorectal surgeons despite a comparable overall ADR among the three groups. PSPDR may be considered as an important quality indicator for colonoscopy, apart from ADR.

Background: Technological developments have allowed advances in minimally invasive techniques for total mesorectal excision such as laparoscopy, robotics, and transanal surgery. There remains an ongoing debate about the safety, benefits, and appropriate clinical scenarios for which each technique is employed. The aim of this study was to provide a panel of expert opinion on the role of each surgical technique currently available in the management of rectal cancer using a modified Delphi method., Methods: Surveys were designed to explore the key patient- and tumor-related factors including clinical scenarios for determining a surgeon's choice of surgical technique., Results: Open surgery was favoured in obese patients with an extra-peritoneal tumor and a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or T4 tumor when a restorative resection was planned. Laparoscopy was favoured in non-obese males and females, in both intra- and extra-peritoneal tumors with a clear CRM. Robotic surgery was most commonly offered to obese patients when the CRM was clear and if an abdominoperineal resection was planned. Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was preferred in male patients with a mid or low rectal cancer, particularly when obese. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery local excision was only offered to frail patients with small, early stage tumors., Conclusions: All surgical techniques for rectal cancer dissection have a role and may be considered appropriate. Some techniques have advantages over others in certain clinical situations, and the best outcomes may be achieved by considering all options before applying an individualised approach to each clinical situation.

Background: Management of anal fistula (AF) remains challenging with many controversies. The purpose of this study was to explore current surgical practice in the management of AF with a focus on technical variations among surgeons., Methods: An online survey was conducted by inviting all surgeons and physicians on the membership directory of European Society of Coloproctology and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. An invitation was extended to others via social media. The survey had 74 questions exploring diagnostic and surgical techniques., Results: In March 2018, 3572 physicians on membership directory were invited to take part in the study 510 of whom (14%) responded to the survey. Of these respondents, 492 (96%) were surgeons. Respondents were mostly colorectal surgeons (84%) at consultant level (84%), age ≥ 40 years (64%), practicing in academic (53%) or teaching (30%) hospitals, from the USA (36%) and Europe (34%). About 80% considered fistulotomy as the gold standard treatment for simple fistulas. Endorectal advancement flap was performed using partial- (42%) or full-thickness (44%) flaps. Up to 38% of surgeons performed ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) sometimes with technical variations. Geographic and demographic differences were found in both the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to AF. Declared rates of recurrence and fecal incontinence with these techniques were variable and did not correlate with surgeons' experience. Only 1-4% of surgeons were confident in performing the most novel sphincter-preserving techniques in patients with Crohn's disease., Conclusions: Profound technical variations exist in surgical management of AF, making it difficult to reproduce and compare treatment outcomes among different centers.