Young‐Fadok, Tonia M.

Abstract Aim Rectal prolapse is a full‐thickness intussusception of the rectum beyond the anal canal. It is often mistaken for other anorectal pathologies, leading to inaccurate referrals to colorectal surgeons and inappropriate management. However, the frequency of misdiagnosis is not well characterized. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of rectal prolapse referrals to three tertiary medical centres. Methods This is a retrospective study of patients referred for rectal prolapse to colorectal surgeons at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix from 2020 to 2024. The primary outcome is the accuracy of rectal prolapse diagnosis. The secondary outcomes are factors that correlate with diagnostic accuracy. Results Rectal prolapse was inaccurately diagnosed in 38.7% (186/480) of patients. Among misdiagnosed patients, the correct diagnosis was haemorrhoids (68.0%, n = 134), pelvic floor dysfunction (24.3%, n = 48) and rectocele (18.7%, n = 37). A diagnosis of rectal cancer was found in 3 patients (1.5%). The most common presenting symptoms were protrusion (66.3%, n = 345) and bleeding (33.6%, n = 175). Among the referring physicians, only 50.5% ( n = 227) performed an anorectal examination. Overall, there was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy across different specialties, with the highest accuracy from colorectal practices (84.0%) and the lowest from urologists (50.0%). Internal medicine physicians had a lower diagnostic accuracy with anorectal examination than without, though it did not reach statistical significance (44.0% vs. 59.5%, p = 0.2). Conclusion Over one‐third of rectal prolapse referrals were incorrectly diagnosed. This study highlights the opportunity for further training of referring providers on anorectal pathologies to improve diagnostic accuracy which could reduce treatment delays and optimize clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Metachronous cancer risk varies by mismatch repair mutation in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Total colectomy offers decreased risk of metachronous colorectal cancers but decreased quality of life compared with segmental colectomy. OBJECTIVE: Compare segmental versus total colectomy for colon cancer via a mutation-specific Markov decision model. DESIGN: Simulated survival and colorectal metachronous occurrence among patients with MLH1, MSH2 , or MSH6 mutations undergoing either segmental or total colectomy. SETTINGS: National databases, literature review. PATIENTS: Simulated patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival, quality-adjusted life years based on procedure-specific utility states (segmental colectomy 0.99, total colectomy 0.95). RESULTS: Among patients aged 25 years, total colectomy offered less than 1 year of increased mean survival compared with segmental resection across all mutations ( MLH1: 0.8 years, MSH2: 0.9, MSH6: 0.3). This difference in survival decreased with increasing age. Segmental resection offered a small increase in quality-adjusted life years compared with total colectomy across all ages. This difference was highest for MSH6 (0.9 years vs MLH1 : 0.6 and MSH2 : 0.4 at age 25), particularly at younger ages of diagnosis. In a sensitivity analysis, lower total colectomy utility states resulted in greater increases in quality-adjusted life years with segmental colectomy across all mutations. LIMITATIONS: Metachronous cancer risk data do not distinguish between colon and rectal cancers and is extrapolated beyond age 70 years. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental and total colectomy offer similar survival and quality-adjusted life year outcomes. With decreased risk of metachronous cancers, patients with MSH6 mutations across all ages may prefer segmental resection owing to higher quality-adjusted life years and lower survival benefits from total colectomy compared with MLH1 and MSH2 patients. Operative strategy in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer should be individualized, and this study shows that mutation-specific differences in survival and quality-adjusted life years are small. See Video Abstract . MODELO DE DECISIÓN ESPECÍFICO PARA LA MUTACIÓN EN LA COLECTOMÍA ABDOMINAL SEGMENTARIA FRENTE A LA COLECTOMÍA ABDOMINAL TOTAL EN EL CÁNCER COLORRECTAL HEREDITARIO NO POLIPOSO ANTECEDENTES: El riesgo de cáncer metacrónico varía según la mutación de reparación de desajustes en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal hereditario no poliposo. La colectomía total ofrece un menor riesgo de cánceres colorrectales metacrónicos, pero una menor calidad de vida en comparación con la colectomía segmentaria. OBJETIVO: Comparar la colectomía segmentaria con la colectomía total para el cáncer de colon mediante un modelo de decisión de Markov específico para mutaciones. DISEÑO: Simulación de la supervivencia y la aparición metacrónica de cáncer colorrectal en pacientes con mutaciones MLH1, MSH2 o MSH6 sometidos a colectomía segmentaria o total. ENTORNO: Bases de datos nacionales, revisión de la literatura. PACIENTES: Pacientes simulados con cáncer colorrectal hereditario no poliposo. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Supervivencia global, años de vida ajustados por calidad basados en estados de utilidad específicos del procedimiento (colectomía segmentaria 0,99, colectomía total 0,95). RESULTADOS: Entre los pacientes de 25 años, la colectomía total ofreció menos de un año de aumento de la supervivencia media en comparación con la resección segmentaria en todas las mutaciones ( MLH1: 0,8 años, MSH2: 0,9, MSH6: 0,3). Esta diferencia en la supervivencia disminuyó con el aumento de la edad. La resección segmentaria ofreció un pequeño aumento en los años de vida ajustados por calidad en comparación con la colectomía total en todas las edades. Esta diferencia fue mayor para MSH6 (0,9 años frente a MLH1 : 0,6 y MSH2 : 0,4 a los 25 años), especialmente en las edades más jóvenes de diagnóstico. En un análisis de sensibilidad, los estados de utilidad más bajos de la colectomía total dieron lugar a mayores aumentos en los años de vida ajustados por calidad con la colectomía segmentaria en todas las mutaciones. LIMITACIONES: Los datos sobre el riesgo de cáncer metacrónico no distinguen entre cánceres de colon y recto y se extrapolan más allá de los 70 años. CONCLUSIONES: La colectomía segmentaria y la colectomía total ofrecen resultados similares en cuanto a la supervivencia y los años de vida ajustados por calidad. Con la disminución del riesgo de cánceres metacrónicos, los pacientes con mutaciones MSH6 de todas las edades pueden preferir la resección segmentaria debido a los mayores años de vida ajustados por calidad y los menores beneficios de supervivencia de la colectomía total en comparación con los pacientes MLH1 y MSH2 . La estrategia quirúrgica en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal hereditario no poliposo debe individualizarse, y este estudio muestra que las diferencias específicas de la mutación en la supervivencia y los años de vida ajustados por calidad son pequeñas. ( AI-generated translation )

AbstractBackgroundThis 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.MethodsExperts 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.ResultsComponents of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process.ConclusionsThese 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.

Abstract 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.

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 MAYO ANTECEDENTES: 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 retrospectivo ENTORNO 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. CoNCLUSIÓNES: 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)

Injections of local anesthetic in the fascial planes around the quadratus lumborum muscle (QL blocks) are performed for postoperative pain control after abdominal surgeries. Multiple approaches of injecting anesthetic in and around the QL have been reported (anterior, posterior, transmuscular, intramuscular and lateral QL blocks). These techniques vary in terms of ease of administration and extent of analgesia. The extent of the anesthetic spread from this ultrasound‐guided procedure is influenced by the fascial layers surrounding the QL. A limited number of studies on small samples using varying amounts of anesthetic have left open questions regarding the extent of spread of local anesthetic and the best approach. This study evaluates the local anesthetic spread of two ultrasound‐guided lateral QL block approaches that have proven effective in controlling postoperative pain. A methylene blue‐dyed saline solution (40mL per QL block) is injected into fresh frozen cadavers (n=10). With the patient in supine position, the needle tip is placed at either (1) the anterolateral border of the QL deep to the transversalis fascia or (2) anterior to the transversus abdominus muscle superficial to its aponeurosis. Anatomic dissection of the injection plane is then performed to determine the extent of spread of the dyed saline. We hypothesize that the continuity between the transversalis fascia and the anterior layer of the thoracolumbar fascia (anterior to the QL) facilitates the cranial spread of the anesthetic under the lateral arcuate ligament to the endothoracic fascia. This would explain our observed analgesic effect past the umbilical region to dermatomes in the epigastric region (T7–T8). Understanding how QL fascial planes facilitate anesthetic spread will enable intraoperative administration of these blocks to be tailored to specific procedures and facilitate post‐operative recovery after abdominal operations. Improved methods of intraoperative pain management may reduce post‐operative opioid use and support the medical community in addressing the opioid epidemic in the United States. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.