Grass, Fabian

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 Objectives Corona virus-induced disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has globally affected the surgical treatment of cancer patients and has challenged the ethical principles of surgical oncologists around the world. Not only treatment but also diagnosis and follow-up have been disrupted. Methods An online survey was sent through Twitter and by the surgical societies worldwide. The survey consisted of 29 closed-ended questions and was conducted over a period of 24 days beginning in March 26, 2020. Results Overall, 394 surgical oncologists from 41 different countries answered the questionnaire. The predominant guiding principle was “saving lives” 240 (62%), and the different aspects of lock-down found hence large support (mean 7.1–9.3 out of 10). Shut-down of elective surgery and modification of cancer care found a mean support of 7.0 ± 3.0 and 5.8 ± 3.1, respectively. Modification of cancer care longer than two weeks was considered unacceptable to 114 (29%) responders. Hundred and fifty six (40%) and 138 (36%) expect “return to normal” beyond six months for surgical practice and cancer care, respectively. Conclusions Surgical oncologists show strong and long-lasting support for lock-down measures aiming to save lives. The impact of the pandemic on surgical oncology is perceived controversially, but the majority was forced already now to accept what is inacceptable for many of their colleagues.

AbstractBackgroundTo evaluate the economic burden of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treatment from a society perspective through analysis of health insurance‐derived data of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients.MethodsRetrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing rectal resection within a multimodal (neoadjuvant chemoradiation + adjuvant chemotherapy) treatment strategy between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2018, using the claims OptumLabs Data Warehouse database.ResultsIn total, 1738 (935 commercial and 803 MA) patients were included. Overall treatment costs totaled $230,881,746 (on average $183 653 ± 82 384 per commercially insured and $73 681 ± 32 917 per MA patient). Cost distribution according to category (commercially insured patients) was: 29.92% related to outpatient care (follow‐up visits/diagnostics), radiotherapy: 21.83%, index resection: 20.62%, chemotherapy: 17.44%, surgical inpatient: 6.32%, medical inpatient: 3.28%, emergency room: 0.58%. Relative cost distribution of the index resection itself differed marginally between the three approaches and was 21.49% for open, 19.30% for laparoscopic, and 20.93% for robotic surgery. Relative cost distributions of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and outpatient treatments remained unchanged, independently of the surgical approach. This representation was similar in MA patients.ConclusionIndex‐surgery related costs were outweighed by costs related to oncological and outpatient workup/follow‐up treatments independently of both surgical approach and insurance type.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment for transverse colon cancer involves either extended colectomy or segmental resection, depending on the location of the tumor and surgeon perspective. However, the oncological safety of segmental resection has not yet been established in large cohort studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare segmental resection versus extended colectomy for transverse colon cancer in terms of oncological outcomes. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted using a nationwide cohort. PATIENTS: A total of 66,062 patients who underwent colectomy with curative intent for transverse stage I to III adenocarcinoma were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004–2015). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were divided in 2 groups based on the type of surgery received (extended versus segmental resection). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate within 30 days of surgical discharge. RESULTS: Extended colectomy was performed in 44,417 (67.2%) patients, whereas 21,645 (32.8%) patients underwent segmental resection. Extended colectomy was associated with lower survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that extended resection was independently associated with poorer survival in mid transverse colon cancers (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12; p < 0.001) and in stage III tumors (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04–1.18; p < 0.001). The number of at least 12 harvested lymph nodes was an independent predictor of improved survival in both overall and subgroup analyses. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Extended colectomy was not associated with a survival advantage compared with segmental resection. On the contrary, extended colectomy was associated with slightly poorer survival in mid transverse cancers and locally advanced tumors. Segmental resection was found to be safe when appropriate margins and adequate lymph node harvest were achieved. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B454. ABORDAJE QUIRÚRGICO DEL CÁNCER DE COLON TRANSVERSO: ANÁLISIS DE LA PRÁCTICA ACTUAL Y LOS RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS UTILIZANDO LA BASE DE DATOS NACIONAL DE CÁNCER ANTECEDENTES: El tratamiento quirúrgico para el cáncer de colon transverso implica colectomía extendida o resección segmentaria, según la ubicación del tumor y la perspectiva del cirujano. Sin embargo, la seguridad oncológica de la resección segmentaria aún no se ha establecido en estudios de cohortes grandes. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la resección segmentaria versus la colectomía extendida para el cáncer de colon transverso en términos de resultados oncológicos. DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Este estudio se realizó utilizando una cohorte a nivel nacional. PACIENTES: Un total de 66,062 pacientes que se sometieron a colectomía con intención curativa por adenocarcinoma de colon transverso en estadio I-III fueron identificados en la Base de Datos Nacional del Cáncer (2004-2015). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los pacientes se dividieron en dos grupos según el tipo de cirugía recibida (resección extendida versus resección segmentaria). El resultado primario fue la supervivencia global. Los resultados secundarios fueron la mortalidad a los 30 y 90 días, la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la tasa de reingreso dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta quirúrgica. RESULTADOS: Se realizó colectomía extendida en 44,417 (67.2%) casos, mientras que 21,645 (32.8%) pacientes fueron sometidos a resección segmentaria. La colectomía extendida se asoció con una menor supervivencia en el análisis multivariado (HR 1.07 IC 95% 1.04-1.10; p <0.001). El análisis de subgrupos mostró que la resección extendida se asoció de forma independiente con una menor supervivencia en los cánceres de colon transverso medio (HR 1.08 IC 95% 1.04-1.12; p <0.001) y en tumores en estadio III (HR 1.11 IC 95% 1.04-1.18; p <0.001). Un número de al menos 12 ganglios linfáticos cosechados fue un predictor independiente de una mejor supervivencia en los análisis general y de subgrupos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo. CONCLUSIÓN: La colectomía extendida no se asoció con una ventaja de supervivencia en comparación con la resección segmentaria. Por el contrario, la colectomía extendida se asoció con una supervivencia levemente menor en cánceres de colon transverso medio y tumores localmente avanzados. Se encontró que la resección segmentaria es segura cuando se logran los márgenes apropiados y la cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B454.

BACKGROUND: Patients with IBD are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer. However, overall survival and disease-free survival for rectal cancer alone in patients with IBD has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine overall survival and disease-free survival for patients with rectal cancer in IBD versus non-IBD cohorts. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an IBD referral center. PATIENTS: All consecutive adult patients with IBD diagnosed with rectal cancer and at least 1 year of postsurgery follow-up were included and matched in a 1:2 fashion (age, sex, preoperative stage) with patients with rectal cancer who did not have IBD. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival, 30-day postoperative complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were measured. METHODS: Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The association of risk factors and long-term outcomes was assessed using Cox proportion hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 107 study patients with IBD who had rectal cancer were matched to 215 control patients; preoperative stages were as follows: 31% with stage I, 19% with stage II, 40% with stage III, and 10% with stage IV. Differences were observed (IBD vs non-IBD) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (33.6% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001) and preoperative radiotherapy (35.5% vs 53.5%, p = 0.003). Postoperative complication rates were similar. On surgical pathology, patients with IBD had more lymphovascular invasion (12.9% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04) and positive circumferential resection margins (5.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, the diagnosis of IBD did not significantly impact long-term mortality (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.53–1.57; p = 0.73) or disease-free survival (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.22). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and the use of single-center data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have rectal cancer with IBD and without IBD have similar long-term and disease-free survival, despite lower rates of neoadjuvant treatment and higher margin positivity in patients with IBD. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271. ¿LA ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL ACARREA PEORES RESULTADOS EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL? UN ANÁLISIS DE CASOS-COINCIDENTES ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal. Sin embargo, no se ha informado la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para el cáncer rectal solo en pacientes con EII. OBJETIVO: Determinar la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para pacientes con cáncer rectal en cohortes con EII versus sin EII. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. MARCO: Centro de referencia para enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. PACIENTES: todos los pacientes adultos con EII diagnosticados con cáncer rectal, consecutives, y al menos un año de seguimiento postoperatorio se incluyeron y se emparejaron de manera 1: 2 (edad, sexo, etapa preoperatoria) con pacientes con cáncer rectal sin EII. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES: Se midieron la supervivencia general a cinco años y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad, complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días, reingreso, reoperación y tasas de mortalidad. MÉTODOS: Las tasas de supervivencia se calcularon utilizando estimaciones de Kaplan-Meier. La asociación de factores de riesgo y resultados a largo plazo se evaluó mediante modelos de riesgo de proporción de Cox. RESULTADOS: Un total de 107 pacientes con EII y cáncer rectal se compararon con 215 pacientes de control; las etapas preoperatorias fueron las siguientes: 31% de Etapa I, 19% de Etapa II, 40% de Etapa III y 10% de Etapa IV. Se observaron diferencias (EII versus no EII) en quimioterapia neoadyuvante (33.6% frente a 52.6%, p = 0.001) y radioterapia preoperatoria (35.5% frente a 53.5%, p = 0.003). Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron similares. En la patología quirúrgica, los pacientes con EII tuvieron más invasión linfovascular (12.9% frente a 5.6%, p = 0.04) y márgenes de resección circunferencial positivos (5.4% frente a 0.9%, p = 0.03). En el análisis multivariable, el diagnóstico de EII no tuvo un impacto significativo en la mortalidad a largo plazo (HR 0.91; IC del 95%: 0.53-1.57, p = 0.73) o la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (HR 1.36; IC del 95%: 0.84-2.21, p = 0.22) LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, centro único de datos. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con EII y sin EII con cáncer rectal tienen una supervivencia similar a largo plazo y libre de enfermedad, a pesar de las tasas más bajas de tratamiento sneoadyuvante y un mayor margen positivo en pacientes con EII. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271.

AbstractUtility of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II cancer remains a matter of debate. Clinical guidelines suggest adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II tumors with high‐risk features, in particular T4 tumors. However, limited consensus exists regarding the importance of other high‐risk features (lymphovascular or perineural invasion, microsatellite instability). Our study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA (T3N0) colon cancer patients. Patients who underwent colectomy for stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma (2010‐2015) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided in two groups based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of patients with specific high‐risk features LVI, PNI and MSI was performed. Among 46 688 surgical patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma 5937 (12.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while 40 751 (87.3%) were observed. Five‐year IPTW‐adjusted survival was higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (79.7% [95% CI 79.1, 80.2]) compared to the observation group (70.3% [95% CI 69.7, 70.9]). Patients with high‐risk pathological features showed an estimated 5‐year survival benefit of 11.3% (78.2% [95% CI 77.4, 79.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI 65.9, 67.8]) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. This NCDB analysis revealed a survival benefit for patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma and high‐risk features that were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rate is an important quality metric and has been recognized as a key measure of hospital value-based purchasing programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the risk factors for hospital readmission with a focus on potentially preventable early readmissions within 48 hours of discharge. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary academic facility with a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing elective major colorectal resections between 2011 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable risk factors for overall and early (<48 hours) readmissions were identified. Specific surgical and medical reasons for readmission were compared between early and late readmissions. RESULTS: In total, 526 of 4204 patients (12.5%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors were ASA score (≥3; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2), excess perioperative weight gain (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3), ileostomy (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1–2), and transfusion (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.4–3), or reoperation (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 7.4–17.5) during the index stay. No potentially preventable risk factor for early readmission (128 patients, 24.3% of all readmissions, 3% of total cohort) was identified, and index hospital stay of ≤3 days was not associated with increased readmission (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7–1.2). Although ileus and small-bowel obstruction (early: 43.8% vs late: 15.5%, p < 0.001) were leading causes for early readmissions, deep infections (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (0% vs 5%, p = 0.006) were mainly observed during readmissions after 48 hours. LIMITATIONS: Risk of underreporting due to loss of follow-up and the potential co-occurrence of complications were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital readmission was mainly due to ileus or bowel obstruction, whereas late readmissions were related to deep infections and acute kidney injury. A suspicious attitude toward potential ileus-related symptoms before discharge and dedicated education for ostomy patients are important. A short index hospital stay was not associated with increased readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237. REINGRESOS DENTRO DE LAS 48 HORAS POSTERIORES AL ALTA: RAZONES, FACTORES DE RIESGO Y POSIBLES MEJORAS ANTECEDENTES: La tasa de reingreso hospitalario es una métrica de calidad importante y ha sido reconocida como una medida clave de los programas hospitalarios de compras basadas en el valor. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los factores de riesgo para el reingreso hospitalario con énfasis en reingresos tempranos potencialmente prevenibles dentro de las 48 horas posteriores al alta. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Institución académica terciaria con programa de recuperación mejorada estandarizado. PACIENTES: Pacientes consecutivos sometidos a resecciones colorrectales mayores electivas entre 2011 y 2016. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se identificaron factores de riesgo uni y multivariables para reingresos totales y tempranos (<48 horas). Se compararon razones médicas y quirúrgicas específicas para el reingreso entre reingresos tempranos y tardíos. RESULTADOS: En total, 526/4204 pacientes (12,5%) fueron readmitidos dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta. Los factores de riesgo independientes fueron puntuación ASA (≥3, OR 1.5; IC 95% 1.1–2), aumento de peso perioperatorio excesivo (OR 1.7; IC 95% 1.3–2.3), ileostomía (OR 1.4, IC 95%: 1–2) y transfusión (OR 2, IC 95% 1.4–3) o reoperación (OR 11.4; IC 95% 7.4–17.5) durante la estadía índice. No se identificó ningún factor de riesgo potencialmente prevenible para el reingreso temprano (128 pacientes, 24.3% de todos los reingresos, 3% de la cohorte total), y la estadía hospitalaria índice de ≤ 3 días no se asoció con un aumento en el reingreso (OR 0.9; IC 95% 0.7–1.2) Mientras que el íleo / obstrucción del intestino delgado (temprano: 43.8% vs. tardío: 15.5%, p < 0.001) fueron las principales causas de reingresos tempranos, infecciones profundas (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) y lesión renal aguda (0 vs 5%, p = 0.006) se observaron principalmente durante los reingresos después de 48 horas. LIMITACIONES: Riesgo de subregistro debido a la pérdida en el seguimiento, posible co-ocurrencia de complicaciones. CONCLUSIONES: El reingreso hospitalario temprano se debió principalmente a íleo u obstrucción intestinal, mientras que los reingresos tardíos se relacionaron con infecciones profundas y lesión renal aguda. Es importante tener una actitud suspicaz hacia los posibles síntomas relacionados con el íleo antes del alta y una educación específica para los pacientes con ostomía. La estadía hospitalaria índice corta no se asoció con mayores tasas de reingreso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237.