Perry, William

Abstract Aim Reversal of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) traditionally occurs at ≥12 weeks after formation. Early closure has been performed in attempts to reduce DLI‐associated morbidity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether time to stoma reversal impacts postoperative morbidity. Method A retrospective review was conducted using institutional‐level American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data for adult patients who underwent DLI closure between January 2012 and December 2021 across a multistate health system. Time to DLI closure was stratified into three groups: ≤12, 12–24 or 24–36 weeks. Additional data were obtained from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was major morbidity after DLI closure. Results A total of 482 patients underwent DLI closure. Eighty four patients underwent closure at ≤12 weeks (17.4%), 300 at 12–24 weeks (62.2%) and 98 at 24–36 weeks (20.3%). The most common diagnosis at DLI formation was cancer ( n = 211, 43.8%). Patients in the ≤12 weeks closure group more commonly had ulcerative colitis or diverticular disease and a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists class than patients with closure at 24–36 weeks ( p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in complication severity, overall major morbidity or its individual components amongst the time to DLI closure groups. There were no differences in anastomotic leaks or need for laparotomy. On multivariable analysis, immunosuppressive therapy and preoperative haematocrit <30% were significant risk factors for major morbidity after DLI closure. Conclusion Major morbidity did not differ by time to DLI closure group, indicating that closure at ≤12 weeks is safe in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Ventral rectopexy has become increasingly used in the surgical management of rectal prolapse. There is a need for a contemporary evaluation of the role of the procedure and a description of its use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To create an international consensus on ventral rectopexy. DESIGN: An expert panel undertook a scoping review of the literature to identify subject domains of interest. Literature reviews were completed for each domain with subsequent development of evidence-based and practice-based statements. These statements were compiled and reviewed by the group over a total of 9 meetings. Once statements were confirmed, supportive text was finalized, and an anonymous vote was completed using Research Electronic Data Capture to record consensus. SETTING: An international expert panel comprising colorectal surgeons who perform ventral rectopexy in a high-volume center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statements and associated expert consensus. RESULTS: Eleven experts identified 10 domains for review: indications, contraindications, assessment and planning, consent, operative details, prostheses, complications, follow-up, recurrence and reoperative surgery, and specific considerations. After round table review, there were 17 resultant statements for consideration. Experts agreed unanimously with 13 of the statements and their accompanying text, with different experts disagreeing regarding the remaining 4 statements (91% consensus each). LIMITATIONS: Paucity of high-quality data. CONCLUSIONS: This international group developed 17 statements with high consensus. These statements provide an up-to-date summary of the literature, identify key areas for research development, and provide a reference point for colon and rectal surgeons who undertake ventral rectopexy as part of their practice. See Video Abstract . RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL: CONSENSO DE UN PANEL INTERNACIONAL DE EXPERTOS Y REVISIÓN DE LA LITERATURA CONTEMPORÁNEA ANTECEDENTES: La rectopexia ventral se ha utilizado cada vez más en el tratamiento quirúrgico del prolapso rectal. Es necesario realizar una evaluación contemporánea del rol del procedimiento y una descripción de su uso en la práctica clínica. OBJETIVO: Crear un consenso internacional sobre la rectopexia ventral. DISEÑO: Un panel de expertos realizó una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura para identificar los dominios temáticos de interés. Se completaron revisiones de la literatura para cada dominio con el desarrollo de declaraciones basadas en la evidencia y la práctica. Estas fueron compiladas y revisadas por el grupo a lo largo de un total de nueve reuniones. Una vez que se confirmaron las declaraciones, se finalizó el texto de apoyo y se completó una votación anónima utilizando REDCap para registrar el consenso. ESCENARIO: Un panel internacional de expertos compuesto por cirujanos colorrectales que realizan rectopexia ventral en un centro de alto volumen. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Declaraciones y consenso de expertos asociado. RESULTADOS: Once expertos identificaron diez dominios a revisar: indicaciones, contraindicaciones, evaluación y planificación, consentimiento, detalles operatorios, prótesis, complicaciones, seguimiento, recurrencia y cirugía reoperatoria y consideraciones específicas. Después de la revisión en mesa redonda, hubo 17 declaraciones resultantes para su consideración. Los expertos estuvieron de acuerdo unánimemente con trece de las declaraciones y su texto acompañante, y diferentes expertos estuvieron en desacuerdo con cuatro declaraciones (91% de consenso cada una). LIMITACIONES: Escasez de datos de alta calidad. CONCLUSIÓN: Este grupo internacional desarrolló 17 declaraciones con alto consenso. Estas declaraciones proporcionan un resumen actualizado de la literatura, identifican áreas claves para el desarrollo de la investigación y un punto de referencia para los cirujanos de colon y recto que realizan rectopexia ventral como parte de su práctica. (Traducción—Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez )

AbstractAimMinimally invasive transanal platforms are now the standard of care for select low‐risk rectal tumours. However, existing platforms come with persistent technical challenges. The da Vinci SP Surgical System™ offers a new alternative designed to work effectively in narrow spaces. This technology has the potential to enhance the feasibility and proximal extent of complex transanal resections. This study aimed to describe the morbidity and technical success in patients undergoing single‐port robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (SPR‐TAMIS). Secondary outcomes include rates of local recurrence.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on all patients who underwent SPR‐TAMIS at our institution between February 2019 and December 2023.ResultsThe study included 31 patients (19 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 61 ± 13.3 years. The average tumour distance from the anal verge was 10 cm. Thirty patients completed SPR‐TAMIS, with one patient requiring conversion to robotic sigmoidectomy due to location in the mid‐sigmoid colon. The mean operating time was 106 ± 42 min. Twenty‐eight out of 30 patients underwent full‐thickness excision and all but two were successfully closed. All specimens were resected intact, and margins were negative in 93.5% of cases. The average tumour size was 13 ± 34 cm2, with 13 lesions classified as adenomas and 16 as adenocarcinomas. All patients who did not undergo associated procedures were discharged on the day of surgery. Two patients experienced 30‐day morbidity. At a mean follow‐up of 18 months (± 13), no local or systemic recurrences were identified.ConclusionSPR‐TAMIS for excision of low‐risk rectal tumours is associated with high rates of technical success and low 30‐day morbidity. Further research is needed to compare SPR‐TAMIS with other techniques to determine potential advantages over current transanal platforms.

Objective: To compare robotic-assisted proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (R-IPAA) outcomes and laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA within a specialized robotic surgery center, using matching techniques to minimize potential confounding factors. Background: Minimally invasive approaches, particularly laparoscopy, have improved outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and familial adenomatous polyposis undergoing IPAA. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential technical advantages, but its definitive superiority over laparoscopy in this context remains under debate. Methods: This retrospective, “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology”–compliant study analyzed 234 consecutive patients undergoing IPAA (117 robotic and 117 laparoscopic). Data encompassed patient demographics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes. We employed various matching techniques to address potential bias. Primary endpoints focused on 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations, with secondary endpoints including hospital stay, blood loss, and stoma closure rates. Results: R-IPAA demonstrated a lower conversion rate to open surgery ( P = 0.02), a shorter hospital stay ( P = 0.04), and reduced blood loss ( P = 0.0003) compared with laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA. While overall 30-day morbidity rates were similar ( P = 0.4), matched analyses suggested a trend towards fewer reoperations and 3-month IPAA-associated complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure in the robotic group. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In a high-volume robotic surgery center, R-IPAA reduced the risk of conversion to open surgery while reducing intraoperative blood loss and providing shorter lengths of stay with equivalent perioperative outcomes. Promising trends to reduce 30-day reoperations and surgical complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure were observed after a matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Narrative operative reports may omit or obscure data from an operation. OBJECTIVE: To develop a synoptic operative report for rectal prolapse that includes core descriptors as developed by an international consensus of expert pelvic floor surgeons. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through review. Members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium were recruited to participate in a 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale. Descriptors that achieved 70% agreement were kept from the first round, and descriptors scoring 40% to 70% agreement were recirculated in subsequent rounds. A final list of operative descriptors was determined at a consensus meeting, with a final consensus meeting more than 70% agreement. SETTINGS: This survey was administered to members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium. PATIENTS: No patient data are included in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptors meeting greater than 70% agreement were selected. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six surgeons representing colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, and urologists distributed throughout North America (56%), Latin America (4%), Western Europe (29%), Asia (4%), and Africa (1%) participated in the first round of Delphi voting. After 2 additional rounds and a final consensus meeting, 16 of 30 descriptors met 70% consensus. Descriptors that met consensus were surgery type, posterior dissection, ventral dissection, mesh used, type of mesh used, mesh location, sutures used, suture type, pouch of Douglas and peritoneum reclosed, length of rectum imbricated, length of bowel resected, levatoroplasty, simultaneous vaginal procedure, simultaneous gynecologic procedure, simultaneous enterocele repair, and simultaneous urinary incontinence procedure. LIMITATIONS: The survey represents the views of members of the Delphi panel and may not represent the viewpoints of all surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey establishes international consensus descriptors for intraoperative variables that have been used to produce a synoptic operative report. This will help establish defined operative reporting to improve clinical communication, quality measures, and clinical research. See Video Abstract. DESARROLLO DE UN PROTOCOLO OPERATORIO SINÓPTICO DERIVADO DE CONSENSO PARA EL PROLAPSO RECTAL: UN INFORME DEL CONSORCIO DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PÉLVICO ANTECEDENTES: Los protocolos operativos narrativos frecuentemente pueden omitir u oscurecer datos de un procedimiento. OBJETIVO: Nuestro objetivo es desarrollar un protocolo operatorio sinóptico para el prolapso rectal que incluya descriptores básicos desarrollados por un consenso internacional de cirujanos expertos en piso pélvico. DISEÑO: Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron mediante revisión. Se reclutó a miembros del Consorcio de Trastornos del Piso Pélvico para participar en un proceso Delphi de 3 rondas utilizando una escala Likert de 9 puntos. Los descriptores que lograron un 70% de acuerdo se mantuvieron en la primera ronda, los descriptores que obtuvieron un 40-70% de acuerdo se recircularon en rondas posteriores. Se determinó una lista final de descriptores operativos en una reunión de consenso, con una reunión de consenso final de más del 70% de acuerdo. ESCENARIO: Esta fue una encuesta administrada a miembros del Consorcio de Trastornos del Piso Pélvico. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se seleccionaron los descriptores que cumplieron más del 70% de acuerdo. RESULTADOS: Ciento setenta y seis cirujanos en representación de cirujanos colorrectales, uroginecólogos y urólogos distribuidos en América del Norte (56%), América Latina (4%), Europa Occidental (29%), Asia (4%) y África (1%) participaron en la primera ronda de votación Delphi. Después de dos rondas adicionales y una reunión de consenso final, 16 de 30 descriptores alcanzaron un 70% de consenso. Los descriptores que alcanzaron consenso fueron: tipo de cirugía, disección posterior, disección ventral, malla utilizada, tipo de malla utilizada, ubicación de la malla, suturas utilizadas, tipo de sutura, cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas y peritoneo, longitud del recto superpuesto, longitud del intestino resecado, plastía de los elevadores , procedimiento vaginal simultáneo, procedimiento ginecológico simultáneo, reparación simultánea de enterocele y procedimiento simultáneo de incontinencia urinaria. LIMITACIONES: La encuesta representa las opiniones de los miembros del panel Delphi y puede no representar los puntos de vista de todos los cirujanos. CONCLUSIONES/DISCUSIÓN: Esta encuesta Delphi establece descriptores de consenso internacional para las variables intraoperatorias que se han utilizado para producir un protocolo operatorio sinóptico. Esto ayudará a establecer protocolos operativos definidos para mejorar la comunicación clínica, las medidas de calidad y la investigación clínica. (Traducción—Dr. Felipe Bellolio)

BACKGROUND: Primary tumors of the ischiorectal fossa are rare and comprise a wide array of pathologies with varying malignant potential. Because of the low prevalence, there is a paucity of data in the literature. This article presents a case series on the management of ischiorectal fossa tumors. OBJECTIVE: To present experience from 30 years of managing ischiorectal fossa tumors. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center analysis. SETTINGS: A quaternary referral academic health care center. PATIENTS: All patients treated for ischiorectal fossa tumors were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent surgical management of their disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease recurrence and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (53% women) were identified with a median follow-up of 23 months. Twenty-one patients (62%) were diagnosed with benign and 13 (38%) with malignant tumors. All underwent surgical resection. The median tumor size was 8.4 cm. R0 resection was obtained in 28 patients. Twelve patients (35%) developed recurrence (9 after R0 resection) after a median time of 6.5 months. There were no surgical-related mortalities. LIMITATIONS: Limitations to the study include its retrospective nature, single-center experience, and small patient sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Ischiorectal fossa tumors are primarily benign; however, they are associated with high recurrence rates even in the setting of an R0 resection. Treatment should be approached in a multidisciplinary manner, preferably in centers with experience treating these tumors. Close posttreatment surveillance is imperative. See Video Abstract. TUMORES DE LA FOSA ISQUIORRECTAL: EXPERIENCIA DE 30 AÑOS EN UNA SOLA INSTITUCIÓN ANTECEDENTES: Los tumores primarios de la fosa isquiorrectal son raros y comprenden una amplia gama de patologías con potencial maligno variable. Debido a la baja prevalencia, hay escasez de datos en la literatura. Este artículo presenta una serie de casos sobre el tratamiento de los tumores de la fosa isquiorrectal. OBJETIVO: Presentar una experiencia de 30 años en el manejo de tumores de la fosa isquiorrectal. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo de un solo centro. AJUSTES: Un centro de atención médica académico de referencia cuaternaria. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes tratados por tumores de la fosa isquiorrectal. INTERVENCIONES: Todos los pacientes se sometieron a tratamiento quirúrgico de su enfermedad. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Recurrencia de la enfermedad y supervivencia general. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron un total de 34 pacientes (53% mujeres) con una mediana de seguimiento de 23 meses. Veintiún pacientes (62%) fueron diagnosticados con tumores benignos y 13 (38%) con tumores malignos. Todos fueron sometidos a resección quirúrgica. El tamaño medio del tumor fue de 8,4 cm. La resección R0 se obtuvo en 28 pacientes. Doce (35%) desarrollaron recurrencia (nueve después de la resección R0) con una mediana de tiempo de 6,5 meses. No hubo mortalidades relacionadas con la cirugía. LIMITACIONES: Las limitaciones del estudio incluyen su naturaleza retrospectiva, experiencia en un solo centro y tamaño pequeño de la muestra de pacientes. CONCLUSIONES: Los tumores de la fosa isquiorrectal son principalmente benignos, sin embargo, se asocian con altas tasas de recurrencia incluso en el contexto de una resección R0. El tratamiento debe abordarse de forma multidisciplinaria y preferentemente en centros con experiencia en el tratamiento de estos tumores. Vigilancia cercana posterior al tratamiento es imperativa. (Traducción—Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez)

Importance Obesity adds complexity to the decision of surgical approach for pelvic organ prolapse; data regarding perioperative complications are needed. Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate associations of body mass index (BMI) and surgical approach (vaginal vs laparoscopic) on perioperative complications. Study Design Patients who underwent prolapse surgery were identified via the Current Procedural Terminology codes from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database 2007–2018. Thirty-day major complications were compared across BMI to identify an inflection point, to create a dichotomous BMI variable. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between BMI and complications. An interaction term was introduced to evaluate for effect modification by operative approach. Results A total of 26,940 patients were identified (25,933 BMI < 40, 1,007 BMI ≥ 40). The proportion of patients experiencing a major complication was higher in the BMI ≥ 40 group (2.0 vs 1.1%, P = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, the odds of a major complication was 1.8 times higher for women with a BMI ≥ 40 (95% confidence interval, 1.1–2.9, P = 0.04). There was a significant interaction between operative approach and BMI; therefore, further analyses were restricted to either vaginal or laparoscopic operative approaches. Among women who underwent vaginal prolapse repair, there was no difference in the odds of a major complication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.4; 0.8–2.4; P = 0.06). Among women who underwent laparoscopic repair, those with a BMI ≥ 40 were 6 times more likely to have a major complication (adjusted odds ratio, 6.0; 2.5–14.6; P < 0.001). Conclusions Body mass index ≥ 40 was associated with an increased odds of a 30-day major complication. This association was greatest in women who underwent a laparoscopic prolapse repair.