Search

Background: Interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC] are required for normal intestinal motility. ICC are found throughout the human colon and are decreased in the sigmoid colon of patients with slow [...]

Background: This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.Methods: A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.Results: All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.Conclusions: The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colovesical fistula secondary to diverticular disease is increasing in incidence. Presentation and severity may differ, but a common management strategy may be applied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the characteristics and perioperative management of patients with colovesical fistulae and determine optimal management.Methods: From 2003 to 2012, all charts of surgical patients with diverticular colovesical fistulae at two different institutions were reviewed. Patient and presentation characteristics and perioperative management and outcomes were recorded. Patient groups with early and late catheter removal (< 8 and ≥ 8 days) were compared with significance level set at p < 0.05.Results: Seventy-eight patient charts were reviewed. The mean duration of symptoms was 7.5 months. Laparoscopic assisted surgery was carried out in 35% of patients. Complex bladder repair was performed in 27%. Mean length of stay was 8 days. Mean urinary catheter duration was 13 days. Seventy percent of patients underwent postoperative cystogram, with 4% positive for extravasation. Patients with early catheter removal were significantly older, more likely to have received intraoperative methylene blue instillation, and less likely to have had a complex bladder repair (p < 0.05). Complication rate, length of stay, postoperative cystography, and stent use were similar for both catheter removal groups.Conclusions: Intraoperative methylene blue bladder instillation should be utilized to limit unnecessary bladder repairs. In the setting of negative methylene blue extravasation, surgeons may confidently remove urinary catheters in 7 days or less, in some cases as early as 48 h. In complex bladder repairs, cystogram is still an important adjunct, with those patients with negative studies benefiting from catheter removal at 7 days or less. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care., Methods: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations., Results: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process., Conclusions: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care., Methods: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS ® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS ® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL., Results: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process., Conclusions: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS ® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.)

Background: Acute diverticulitis in immunocompromised patients is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates with either medical or surgical treatment. Thus, management approach is controversial, especially for patients presenting with nonperforated disease., Objective: This study aimed to report the Mayo clinic experience of acute diverticulitis management in immunocompromised patients., Design: This design is based on a retrospective cohort study., Setting: This study was conducted with institutional data composed from 3 tertiary referral centers., Patients: Immunocompromised patients presenting with acute diverticulitis at 3 Mayo clinic sites between 2016 and 2020 were included., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were the management algorithm and short-term outcomes., Results: Immunocompromised patients presenting with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (86) were all managed nonoperatively at presentation with a success rate of 93% (80/86). Two patients (2.3%, 2/86) required surgery during the same admission, and 4 patients (4.8%, 4/84) had 30-day readmission. Complicated diverticulitis patients with abscess (22) were all managed nonoperatively first with a success rate of 95.4% (21/22). One patient (4.6%, 1/22) required surgery during the same admission. All the patients who presented with obstruction (2), fistula (1), or free perforation (11) underwent surgery except one who chose hospice. Overall, the major complication rate was 50% (8/16) and mortality rate was 18.8% (3/16) among patients who underwent surgery during the same admission. For patients who presented with perforated diverticulitis, the mortality rate was 27.3% (3/11), compared with 0% (0/111) for patients who presented with nonperforated disease., Limitations: This cohort was limited by its retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the patient population., Conclusions: Nonoperative management was safe and feasible for immunocompromised patients with colonic diverticulitis without perforation at our center. Perforated colonic diverticulitis in immunocompromised patients was associated with high morbidity and mortality rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B988 .MANEJO DE LA DIVERTICULITIS AGUDA EN PACIENTES INMUNOCOMPROMETIDOS: EXPERIENCIA DE LA CLINICA MAYOANTECEDENTES:La diverticulitis aguda en pacientes inmunocomprometidos se asocia con una alta tasa de morbilidad y mortalidad con el tratamiento médico o quirúrgico. Por lo tanto, el enfoque de manejo es controvertido, especialmente para pacientes que presentan enfermedad no perforada.OBJETIVO:El propósito fue informar la experiencia de la clínica Mayo en el manejo de la diverticulitis aguda en pacientes inmunocomprometidos.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivoENTORNO CLÍNICO:Este estudio se realizó con datos institucionales compuestos de tres centros de referencia terciarios.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes inmunocomprometidos que presentaron diverticulitis aguda en tres sitios de la clínica Mayo entre 2016 y 2020.RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:Algoritmo de gestión y resultados a corto plazo.RESULTADOS:Los pacientes inmunocomprometidos que presentaban diverticulitis aguda no complicada (86) fueron tratados de forma no quirúrgica en la presentación inicial con una tasa de éxito del 93 % (80/86). Dos pacientes (2,3%, 2/86) requirieron cirugía durante el mismo ingreso y cuatro pacientes (4,8%, 4/84) tuvieron reingreso a los 30 días. Todos los pacientes con diverticulitis complicada con absceso (22) fueron tratados primero de forma no quirúrgica con una tasa de éxito del 95,4 % (21/22). Un paciente (4,6%, 1/22) requirió cirugía durante el mismo ingreso. Todos los pacientes que presentaron obstrucción (2), fístula (1) o perforación libre (11) fueron intervenidos excepto uno que optó por hospicio. La tasa global de complicaciones mayores fue del 50 % (8/16) y la tasa de mortalidad fue del 18,8 % (3/16) entre los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía durante el mismo ingreso. Para los pacientes que presentaban diverticulitis perforada, la tasa de mortalidad fue del 27,3 % (3/11), en comparación con el 0 % (0/111) de los pacientes que presentaban enfermedad no perforada.LIMITACIONES:Esta cohorte estuvo limitada por su naturaleza retrospectiva y la heterogeneidad de la población de pacientes., Conclusines: El manejo no quirúrgico fue seguro y factible para pacientes inmunocomprometidos con diverticulitis colónica sin perforación en nuestro centro. La diverticulitis colónica perforada en pacientes inmunocomprometidos se asoció con una alta tasa de morbilidad y mortalidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B988 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo )., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2022.)

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach., Methods: Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1., Results: Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds., Conclusions: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS ® ) principles have been beneficial in major abdominal surgery. ERAS ® was instituted in our breast surgery practice in 2017. The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of outpatient mastectomies before and after ERAS ® ., Methods: A retrospective review of all mastectomies between 1/2013 and 6/2018 was performed. Patients receiving autologous flap reconstruction were excluded. The institution-specific ERAS ® pathway began on February 1, 2017. Patient characteristics, operative intervention, and postoperative outcomes were compared between pre-ERAS ® and post-ERAS ® groups and between outpatient and inpatient subgroups. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-square analyses., Results: A total of 487 patients were analyzed. Three hundred and forty-seven (71%) were prior to ERAS ® and 140 after (29%). The two groups were not significantly different in background characteristics. Same-day discharge occurred in 58.6% of post-ERAS ® patients versus 7.2% of pre-ERAS ® patients (p < 0.001). Liposomal bupivacaine block was used for pain control more in the post-ERAS ® group, 62.1% versus 6.1% (p < 0.001). Reconstruction type differed with 45.7% of the post-ERAS ® group undergoing direct-to-implant reconstruction versus 34.3% of pre-ERAS ® patients (p < 0.001) and with higher rates of submuscular implant and tissue expander placement in the pre-ERAS ® versus post-ERAS ® group (p < 0.001). Complications rates were lower in the post-ERAS ® group versus pre-ERAS ® group, 32.9% versus 52.4% (p < 0.001). The outpatient subgroup had higher rates of liposomal bupivacaine administration 74.4% versus 44.8% (p < 0.001). Baseline characteristics and complication rates did not differ between outpatient and admitted subgroups., Conclusion: ERAS ® principles can be applied to breast cancer patients and allow for outpatient mastectomies with no increase in postoperative morbidity.

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been associated with increased postoperative complications and a prolonged length of stay (LOS). We report on our experience following implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program for CRS and HIPEC., Methods: Patients were divided into pre- and post-ERAS groups. Modifications in the ERAS group included routine use of transversus abdominis plane blocks, intra- and postoperative fluid restriction, and minimizing the use of narcotics, drains, and nasogastric tubes., Results: Of a total of 130 procedures, 49 (38%) were in the pre-ERAS group and 81 (62%) were in the ERAS group. Mean LOS was reduced from 10.3 ± 8.9 days to 6.9 ± 5.0 days (p = 0.007) and the rate of grade III/IV complications was reduced from 24 to 15% (p = 0.243) following ERAS implementation. The ERAS group received less intravenous fluid during hospitalization (19.2 ± 18.7 L vs. 32.8 ± 32.5 L, p = 0.003) and used less opioids than the pre-ERAS group (median of 159.7 mg of oral morphine equivalents vs. 272.6 mg). There were no significant changes in the rates of 30-day readmission or acute kidney injury between the two groups (p = non-significant). On multivariable analyses, ERAS was significantly associated with a reduction in LOS (- 2.89 days, 95% CI - 4.84 to - 0.94) and complication rates (odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.57)., Conclusions: Implementation of an ERAS program for CRS and HIPEC is associated with a reduction in overall intravenous fluids, postoperative narcotic use, complication rates, and LOS.

This short historical overview explains the development of enhanced recovery from a small group of surgeons in European academic centers to the establishment of ERAS ® Society, a not-for-profit multiprofessional multidisciplinary medical-academic society, reaching all major continents and involving a wide range of surgical and anesthesia disciplines.

Background: The last 30 years have witnessed a significant increase in the diagnosis of early-stage rectal cancer and the development of new strategies to reduce the treatment-related morbidity. Currently, there is no consensus on the definition of early rectal cancer (ERC), and the best management of ERC has not been yet defined. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery in collaboration with the European Society of Coloproctology developed this consensus conference to provide recommendations on ERC diagnosis, staging and treatment based on the available evidence., Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts selected on their clinical and scientific expertise was invited to critically review the literature and to formulate evidence-based recommendations by the Delphi method. Recommendations were discussed at the plenary session of the 14th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Paris, 26 June 2014, and then posted on the EAES website for open discussion., Results: Tumour biopsy has a low accuracy. Digital rectal examination plays a key role in the pre-operative work-up. Magnification chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are complementary staging modalities. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are the two established approaches for local excision (LE) of selected ERC. The role of all organ-sparing approaches including neoadjuvant therapies followed by LE should be formally assessed by randomized controlled trials. Rectal resection and total mesorectal excision is indicated in the presence of unfavourable features at the pathological evaluation of the LE specimen. The laparoscopic approach has better short-term outcomes and similar oncologic results when compared with open surgery., Conclusions: The management of ERC should always be based on a multidisciplinary approach, aiming to increase the rate of organ-preserving procedures without jeopardizing survival.

Extended lymphadenectomy has gained considerable attention as an adjunct to conventional colon cancer surgery with the hope that it may potentially decrease local recurrence rates and improve cancer-specific outcome measures. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding these techniques, it is difficult to establish any additional survival benefit associated with more comprehensive lymphadenectomy strategies when these are performed in addition to conventional colon cancer surgery. Furthermore, these techniques remain unproven by large randomized clinical trials. The appropriate indications for performing extended lymphadenectomy also remain unclear, and there is a lack of standardization with regard to surgical technique. Moreover, there are a number of confounding factors that frequently receive little attention when oncological outcome measures are reported following extended lymphadenectomy in the setting of colon cancer. The purpose of this review is to outline these confounding issues and discuss their impact on reports describing cancer-specific outcome measures following the use of extended lymphadenectomy techniques. Furthermore, this review proposes that in light of the available published evidence, the role of radical lymphadenectomy is currently unproven, with large randomized clinical trials required in the future to determine whether there is a survival benefit for colon cancer patients.