Back to Authors

Calini, Giacomo

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7460-9578

Mayo Clinic

IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola

Citations 14

P265 Open approach for ileocolic resection in Crohn’s disease in the era of minimally invasive surgery: indications and perioperative outcomes in a referral centre
Calini, Giacomo , Benammi, Sarah , Merchea, Amit , Mathis, Kellie L. , Larson, Dirk, Calini, G , Solafah, A , Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd El , Behm, Kevin T.

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis | January 21, 2022 | Volume: 16 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: i305-i305

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.392 Get It

Abstract Background Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the first-line approach for ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and it is safe and feasible even in complex cases. However, an open approach is still required, but indications to open ileocolic resection for CD are not well described. Methods All consecutive adult patients with CD who underwent elective ileocolic resection in the Departments of Colon and Rectal Surgery at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota and Jacksonville, Florida between September 2014 and March 2021 were included and divided into “open” and “MIS” groups. Open approach was defined as upfront laparotomy, MIS included laparoscopic and robotic approaches, and conversion was defined as incision made earlier than planned. Indications to open approach were retrospectively reviewed by two authors, and any incongruity was resolved. Analogous indications were also assessed in the MIS group, as appropriate. Indications, baseline, perioperative characteristics, and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared between open and MIS. Results Among 319 ileocolic resections for CD, 45 (14.1%) were open and 274 (85.9%) MIS. Indications for open approach were severe disease, adhesions at previous surgery, history of abdominal sepsis, multifocal and extensive disease, abdominal wall involvement, concomitant open procedures, small bowel dilatation, and anaesthesiologic contraindications (Table 1). In addition, two or more of the above indications were present in 40 patients (89%) in the open group, while only in 6 patients (2%) in the MIS group (p<0.001). Compared to MIS patients, patients undergoing open ileocolic resection were older, with longer CD duration, more previous surgery and preoperative intra-abdominal abscess drainage (Table 2). Nine patients were converted in the MIS group (3.3%). Intraoperatively, open group had more adhesiolysis ≥45 min, more intraoperative complications, more blood loss, more primary stoma, less anastomosis, and longer operative time (Table 3). Postoperatively, they had more overall postoperative complications, ileus, surgical site infections, dehydration, vascular thromboembolism, higher severity by Clavien-Dindo classification, and longer length of stay (Table 4). Conclusion Overall rate of open approach ileocolic resection for CD was 14 % during a 7-years period in a referral centre. Open approach was the only operation performed in cases of abdominal wall involvement, concomitant open procedures, and anaesthesiologic contraindication. In addition, the presence of at least two indications,predicting high technical complexity, may be considered as a no-go for the MIS approach in ileocolic resections for CD.
Postoperative Safety Profile of Minimally Invasive Ileocolonic Resections for Crohn’s Disease in the Era of Biologic Therapy
Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd El , Calini, Giacomo , Saeed, Hamadelneel, Stocchi, Luca , Merchea, Amit , Shawki, Sherief , Abd El Aziz, Mohamed A , Solafah, A , Calini, G , Colibaseanu, Dorin T, Colibaseanu, Dorin , Larson, David W.

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis | January 14, 2022 | Volume: 16 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1079-1088

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac012 Get It

Abstract Background There is controversy regarding the postoperative outcomes in Crohn’s disease [CD] patients exposed to vedolizumab [VDZ] or ustekinumab [UST]. We aimed to describe our surgical outcomes in patients who underwent minimally invasive ileocolonic resection [MIS-ICR] for CD who had preoperative biologic therapy. Methods All consecutive adult patients who had MIS-ICR for CD between 2014 and 2021 at our institution were included. Patients were divided into four groups: VDZ, UST, anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF], and no biologic group. Timing between the last dose of biologics and surgery was per surgeon’s discretion. The primary outcome was intra-abdominal septic complications. Secondary outcomes included all 30-day complications. Results A total of 274 patients were identified. Of these, 113 [41.2%] patients had received anti-TNF, 52 [19%] had received UST, and 19 [7%] had received VDZ. There was no difference between the four groups regarding baseline risk factors. There was no difference between the four groups regarding intra-abdominal septic complications [4.4% for no biologic, 5.3% for anti-TNF, 5.8% for UST, and 5.3% for VDZ; p = 0.987], surgical site infection rate, overall 30-day morbidity, overall 30-day readmission, overall surgical and medical complications, urinary tract infection, pulmonary infections, or length of stay. Those results were consistent after a subgroup analysis based on complexity of the disease. Conclusions This retrospective analysis demonstrates an equivalent postoperative safety profile for patients treated with preoperative anti-TNF, VDZ, or UST versus no biologic therapy within 3 months of MIS-ICR for Crohn’s disease. Preoperative biologic therapy may not increase complications after minimally invasive ileocolonic resection in Crohn’s disease. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm results.
Oral Antibiotics Bowel Preparation Without Mechanical Preparation for Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgeries: Current Practice and Future Prospects
Calini, Giacomo , D’Angelo, Anne-Lise D. , Mathis, Kellie L. , Calini, G , Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd El , Grass, Fabian , Behm, Kevin T. , Kelley, Scott R. , Larson, David W.

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum | December 3, 2021 | Volume: 65 | Issue: 9 | Pages: e897-e906

10.1097/dcr.0000000000002096 Get It

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotics alone compared with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in minimally invasive surgery is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the trend of surgical site infection rates in parallel to the utilization of bowel preparation modality over time for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries in the United States. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was the source of data for this study. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery and reported bowel preparation modality were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the trends and the comparison of surgical site infection rates for mutually exclusive groups according to the underlying disease (colorectal cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease) who underwent bowel preparation using oral antibiotics or combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. Patients who underwent rectal surgery were analyzed separately. RESULTS: A total of 30,939 patients were included. Of them, 12,417 (40%) had rectal resections. Over the 7-year study period, mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation utilization increased from 29.3% in 2012 to 64.0% in 2018; p < 0.0001 at the expense of no preparation and mechanical bowel preparation alone. Similarly, oral antibiotics utilization increased from 2.3% in 2012 to 5.5% in 2018; p < 0.0001. For patients with colon cancer, patients who had oral antibiotics alone had higher superficial surgical site infection rates than patients who had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (1.9% vs 1.1%; p = 0.043). Superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative colon surgery groups (cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease). Patients with rectal cancer who had oral antibiotics had higher rates of deep surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.1%; p = 0.004). However, superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative rectal surgery groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis. CONCLUSION: This study revealed widespread adoption of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation and increased adoption of oral antibiotics over the study period. Surgical site infection rates are similar from a clinical relevance standpoint among most comparative groups, questioning the systematic preoperative addition of mechanical bowel preparation to oral antibiotics alone in all patients for minimally invasive colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828. PREPARACIÓN INTESTINAL CON ANTIBIÓTICOS ORALES SIN PREPARACIÓN MECÁNICA EN CIRUGÍAS COLORRECTALES MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVAS: PRÁCTICA ACTUAL Y PERSPECTIVAS FUTURAS ANTECEDENTES: La eficacia de los antibióticos orales preoperatorios solos en comparación con la preparación intestinal mecánica mas antibióticos orales en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva es un tema de debate que todavía esta en curso. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la tendencia de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico en relacion a la utilización de la modalidad de preparación intestinal a lo largo del tiempo en cirugías colorrectales mínimamente invasivas en los Estados Unidos. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos. PACIENTES: Pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva y reportados con modalidad de preparación intestinal. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN: Tendencias y comparacion de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico para grupos mutuamente excluyentes según la enfermedad subyacente (cáncer colorrectal, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular) que se sometieron a preparación intestinal usando antibióticos orales exclusivamente o preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales. Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía rectal se analizaron por separado. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 30.939 pacientes. De ellos, 12.417 (40%) se sometieron a resecciones rectales. Durante el período de estudio de siete años, la preparación mecánica del intestino y la utilización de antibióticos orales aumentó del 29,3% en 2012 al 64,0% en 2018; p < 0,0001 sobre la no preparación y de la preparación intestinal mecánica exclusivamente. De manera similar, la utilización de antibióticos orales ha aumentado del 2,3% en 2012 al 5,5% en 2018; p < 0,0001. Para los pacientes con cáncer de colon, los pacientes que recibieron antibióticos orales solos tuvieron mayores tasas de infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico en comparación con los pacientes que recibieron una preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales (1,9% frente a 1,1%; p = 0,043). Las tasas de infección superficial, profundo del sitio quirúrgico y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares para todos los demás grupos de cirugía de colon (cáncer, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular). Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que recibieron antibióticos orales tuvieron tasas más altas de infección profunda del sitio quirúrgico (0,9% frente a 0,1%; p = 0,004). Sin embargo, las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial, profundo y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares comparativamente para todos los demás grupos de cirugía rectal. LIMITACIONES: Carácter retrospectivo del análisis. CONCLUSIONES: Este estudio reveló la adopción generalizada de preparación intestinal mecánica y antibióticos orales y una mayor aceptación de antibióticos orales durante el período de estudio. Las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico parecen ser similares desde un punto de vista de relevancia clínica entre la mayoría de los grupos comparados, lo que cuestiona la adición preoperatoria sistemática de preparación intestinal mecánica a antibióticos orales solos en todos los pacientes para cirugía colorrectal mínimamente invasiva. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828. (Traducción— Dr. Ingrid Melo)
Laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block versus intrathecal analgesia in robotic colorectal surgery
Calini, Giacomo , Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd El , Solafah, A, Saeed, Hasan Abdulhadi Isa Ali, Lovely, Jenna K. , D’Angelo, A-L, Calini, G , Abd El Aziz, Mohamed A , Solafah, A , Lovely, J K , Larson, David W. , Kelley, Scott R. , Colibaseanu, Dorin , Behm, Kevin T.

British Journal of Surgery | July 23, 2021 | Volume: 108 | Issue: 11 | Pages: e369-e370

10.1093/bjs/znab294 Get It