Demartines, N

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most performed surgeries worldwide. Procedure difficulty and patient outcomes depend on several factors which are not considered in the current literature, including the learning curve, generating confusing and subjective results. This study aims to create a scoring system to calculate the learning curve of LC based on hepatobiliopancreatic (HPB) experts’ opinions during an educational course. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was submitted to the panel of experts attending the HPB course at Research Institute against Digestive Cancer-IRCAD (Strasbourg, France) from 27–29 October 2022. Experts scored the proposed variables according to their degree of importance in the learning curve using a Likert scale from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). Variables were included in the composite scoring system only if more than 75% of experts ranked its relevance in the learning curve assessment ≥4. A positive or negative value was assigned to each variable based on its effect on the learning curve. Results: Fifteen experts from six different countries attended the IRCAD HPB course and filled out the questionnaire. Ten variables were finally included in the learning curve scoring system (i.e., patient body weight/BMI, patient previous open surgery, emergency setting, increased inflammatory levels, presence of anatomical bile duct variation(s), and appropriate critical view of safety (CVS) identification), which were all assigned positive values. Minor or major intraoperative injuries to the biliary tract, development of postoperative complications related to biliary injuries, and mortality were assigned negative values. Conclusions: This is the first scoring system on the learning curve of LC based on variables selected through the experts’ opinions. Although the score needs to be validated through future studies, it could be a useful tool to assess its efficacy within educational programs and surgical courses.

The present large scale study aimed to assess the prevalence and consequences of malnutrition, based on clinical assessment (body mass index and preoperative weight loss) and severe hypoalbuminemia (<3.1 g/L), in a representative US cohort undergoing IBD surgery. The American College of Surgeons National Quality improvement program (ACS-NSQIP) Public User Files (PUF) between 2005 and 2018 were assessed. A total of 25,431 patients were identified. Of those, 6560 (25.8%) patients had severe hypoalbuminemia, 380 (1.5%) patients met ESPEN 2 criteria (≥10% weight loss over 6 months PLUS BMI < 20 kg/m2 in patients <70 years OR BMI < 22 kg/m2 in patients ≥70 years), and 671 (2.6%) patients met both criteria (severe hypoalbuminemia and ESPEN 2). Patients who presented with malnutrition according to any of the three definitions had higher rates of overall, minor, major, surgical, and medical complications, longer LOS, higher mortality and higher rates of readmission and reoperation. The simple clinical assessment of malnutrition based on BMI and weight loss only, considerably underestimates its true prevalence of up to 50% in surgical IBD patients and calls for dedicated nutritional assessment.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of an intraoperative standardized surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle. Methods: The multimodal, evidence-based care bundle included nine intraoperative items (antibiotic type, timing, and re-dosing; disinfection; induction temperature control > 36.5°; glove change; intra-cavity lavage; wound protection; and closure strategy). The bundle was applied to all consecutive patients undergoing colonic resections. The primary outcome, SSI, was independently assessed by the National Infection Surveillance Committee for up to 30 postoperative days. A historical, institutional pre-implementation control group (2012–2017) with an identical methodology was used for comparison. Findings: In total, 1516 patients were included, of which 1256 (82.8%) were in the control group and 260 (17.2%) were in the post-implementation group. After 2:1 propensity score matching, the groups were similar for all items (p > 0.05). Overall compliance with the care bundle was 77% (IQR 77–88). The lowest compliance rates were observed for temperature control (53% overall), intra-cavity lavage (64% overall), and wound protection and closure (68% and 63% in the SSI group, respectively). Surgical site infections were reported in 58 patients (22.2%) vs. 21.4% in the control group (p = 0.79). Infection rates were comparable throughout the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) categories: superficial, 12 patients (4.5%) vs. 4.2%, p = 0.82; deep incisional, 10 patients (3.7%) vs. 5.1%, p = 0.34; organ space, 36 (14%) vs. 12.4%, p = 0.48. After propensity score matching, rates remained comparable throughout all comparisons (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: The implementation of an intraoperative standardized care bundle had no impact on SSI rates. This may be explained by insufficient compliance with the individual measures.

Abstract Background This study aimed to identify patients eligible for a 48-h stay after colorectal resection, to provide guidance for early discharge planning. Methods A bi-institutional retrospective cohort study was undertaken of consecutive patients undergoing major elective colorectal resection for benign or malignant pathology within a comprehensive enhanced recovery pathway between 2011 and 2017. Overall and severe (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb or above) postoperative complication and readmission rates were compared between patients who were discharged within 48 h and those who had hospital stay of 48 h or more. Multinominal logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain significant factors associated with a short hospital stay (less than 48 h). Results In total, 686 of 5122 patients (13·4 per cent) were discharged within 48 h. Independent factors favouring a short hospital stay were age below 60 years (odds ratio (OR) 1·34; P = 0·002), ASA grade less than III (OR 1·42; P = 0·003), restrictive fluid management (less than 3000 ml on day of surgery: OR 1·46; P &lt; 0·001), duration of surgery less than 180 min (OR 1·89; P &lt; 0·001), minimally invasive approach (OR 1·92; P &lt; 0·001) and wound contamination grade below III (OR 4·50; P &lt; 0·001), whereas cancer diagnosis (OR 0·55; P &lt; 0·001) and malnutrition (BMI below 18 kg/m2: OR 0·42; P = 0·008) decreased the likelihood of early discharge. Patients with a 48-h stay had fewer overall (10·8 per cent versus 30·6 per cent in those with a longer stay; P &lt; 0·001) and fewer severe (2·6 versus 10·2 per cent respectively; P &lt; 0·001) complications, and a lower readmission rate (9·0 versus 11·8 per cent; P = 0·035). Conclusion Early discharge of selected patients is safe and does not increase postoperative morbidity or readmission rates. In these patients, outpatient colorectal surgery should be feasible on a large scale with logistical optimization.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

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.