Wexner, Steven D.

Objective: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. Results: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. Conclusions: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

From the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic of 2020, the American College of Surgeons has been a leader in disseminating reliable information on the nature of the crisis and assuring quality of surgical care during the enforced lockdown of inpatient and outpatient care.

BACKGROUND: Restorative total proctocolectomy with IPAA may not be feasible in some patients because of technical intraoperative limitations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess preoperative predictors for intraoperative IPAA and review management. DESIGN: This is a retrospective review. SETTING: This study was conducted at Cleveland Clinic between January 2010 and May 2018. PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent ileoanal pouch surgery were included. Patients with successful pouch creation as planned were grouped as “successful IPAA creation.” Operative reports of patients who underwent alternative procedures were reviewed to identify cases when the pouch was preoperatively planned but intraoperatively abandoned (IPAA-abandoned group). Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to determine predictors of intraoperative pouch abandonment. We also reviewed the management of patients in whom the initial pouch creation failed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were preoperative predictors for intraoperative ileoanal pouch abandonment. RESULTS: A total of 1438 patients were offered an ileoanal pouch; 21 (1.5%) experienced pouch abandonment due to inadequate reach (n = 17) and other technical reasons (n = 4). These patients underwent alternative procedures such as end or loop ileostomy with/without proctectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated male sex (OR, 6.021; 95% CI, 1.540–23.534), BMI (OR, 1.217; 95% CI, 1.114–1.329), and a 2-stage procedure (OR, 14.510; 95% CI, 4.123–51.064) as independent factors associated with intraoperative abandonment of pouch creation. Alternative procedures were total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy (n = 14) and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy (n = 7). Ultimately, pouch creation was achieved in 6 of 21 patients after a median interval of 8.8 (range, 4.1–34.8) months. All patients had intentional weight loss before a reattempt and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy as their initial procedure. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ileoanal pouch abandonment is rare and can be mitigated by initial total abdominal colectomy and weight loss. Male, obese patients are at a higher risk of failure. Intraoperative assessment of ileoanal pouch feasibility should occur before rectal dissection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. PREDICCIÓN MULTIVARIANTE DEL ABANDONO INTRAOPERATORIO DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL ANTECEDENTES: La proctocolectomía total restaurativa con anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal puede no ser posible en algunos pacientes debido a limitaciones técnicas intraoperatorias. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal y revisar el manejo. DISEÑO: Revisión retrospectiva. MARCO: Cleveland Clinic entre Enero de 2010 y mayo de 2018. PACIENTES: Pacientes > 18 años que se sometieron a cirugía de bolsa ileoanal. Los pacientes con una creación exitosa de la bolsa según lo planeado se agruparon como “creación exitosa de anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal”. Se revisaron los informes operativos de los pacientes que se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos para identificar los casos en que la bolsa se planificó preoperatoriamente pero se abandonó intraoperatoriamente (grupo de “anastomosis anal de bolsa ileoanal abandonada”). Se desarrollaron modelos de regresión logística multivariante para determinar los predictores del abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa. También revisamos el manejo de pacientes que fallaron en la creación inicial de la bolsa. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal. RESULTADOS: A un total de 1438 pacientes se les ofreció una bolsa ileoanal; 21 (1.5%) experimentaron abandono de la bolsa debido a un alcance inadecuado (n = 17) y otras razones técnicas (n = 4). Estos pacientes se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos como ileostomía final o de asa con / sin proctectomía. El análisis de regresión logística multivariante indicó género masculino (OR, 6.021; IC 95%, 1.540–23.534), índice de masa corporal (OR, 1.217; IC 95%, 1.114–1.329) y procedimiento en 2 etapas (OR, 14.510; IC 95%, 4.123–51.064) como factores independientes asociados con el abandono intraoperatorio de la creación de la bolsa. Los procedimientos alternativos fueron la proctocolectomía total con ileostomía final (n = 14) y la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía (n = 7). Finalmente, la creación de la bolsa se logró en 6/21 pacientes después de un intervalo medio de 8.8 (rango, 4.1–34.8) meses. Todos los pacientes tuvieron pérdida de peso intencional antes de la reintenta y colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía como procedimiento inicial. LIMITACIONES: Naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: El abandono de la bolsa ileoanal es raro y puede mitigarse mediante la colectomía abdominal total inicial y la pérdida de peso. Los pacientes masculinos y obesos tienen un mayor riesgo de fracaso. La evaluación intraoperatoria de la viabilidad de la bolsa ileoanal debe ocurrir antes de la disección rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. (Traducción—Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Kahlil)

Objective: To determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence after the treatment of patients with rectal cancer with open (OPEN) or laparoscopic (LAP) resection. Background: This randomized clinical trial (ACOSOG [Alliance] Z6051), performed between 2008 and 2013, compared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The rectum and mesorectum were resected using open instruments for rectal dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum. The 2-year DFS and recurrence were secondary endpoints of Z6051. Methods: The DFS and recurrence were not powered, and are being assessed for superiority. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter, using carcinoembryonic antigen, physical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy. In all, 486 patients were randomized to LAP (243) or OPEN (243), with 462 eligible for analysis (LAP = 240 and OPEN = 222). Median follow-up is 47.9 months. Results: The 2-year DFS was LAP 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.4–84.9) and OPEN 83.2% (95% CI 78.3–88.3). Local and regional recurrence was 4.6% LAP and 4.5% OPEN. Distant recurrence was 14.6% LAP and 16.7% OPEN. Disease-free survival was impacted by unsuccessful resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.21–2.91): composite of incomplete specimen (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85–3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40–3.79); positive distal margin (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30–3.77). Conclusion: Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrence.