17 research outputs found
Laparoscopic anatomical landmarks in oncological dissection for low rectal cancers – a video vignette
No full textSplenectomy through the laparoscopic approach and how I do it
No full textScopul lucrării. Studierea cazurilor de splenectomie prin abord laparoscopic și clasic în vederea stabilirii cauzalității tip procedurăincidente
perioperatorii și demonstrării superiorității abordului laparoscopic.
Materiale și metode. Au fost selectate cazurile de splenectomie efectuate prin abord clasic și laparoscopic în Clinica de Chirurgie
Colțea, perioada 01.01.2019-31.12.2022. Am revăzut filmările intraoperatorii, am evaluat factorii generali și locali asociați abordului
chirurgical preferat.
Rezultate. Au fost selectate 29 de cazuri, vârsta medie 54.8 ani, 72.4% femei, 27.6% barbati, 55.2% (16) cu multiple comorbidități:
antecedente chirurgicale majore, insuficiența cardiacă, asmul bronșic sever etc. Cazurile au fost împărțite în 2 grupe: Gr. I- cu abord
laparoscopic 34.5% (10), Gr. II- cu abord clasic 65.5% (19). Incidența comorbidităților a fost de 10% (1) în Gr.I, cu dimensiunea medie
a splinei de 13.2 cm (min 8.5 cm, max 21 cm) și 84.2 % (16) în Gr.II cu dimensiunea medie a splinei de 20.4 cm (min 10 cm, max 34
cm). Doar în Gr.II au fost înregistrate sângerări intraoperatorii în 78.9% (15), iar in 15.8% (3) au fost complicații postoperatorii. Pacienții
din Gr.I au avut o perioadă de spitalizare postoperatorie medie de 4 zile, iar cei din Gr. II de 7 zile și au fost externați cu o evoluție
postoperatorie favorabilă.
Concluzie. Abordul laparoscopic are aceleași indicații ca abordul clasic conform EAES, cu avantajul complicațiilor perioperatorii mult
reduse și o spitalizare postoperatorie mai mică comparativ cu abordul clasic, iar în cazul echipelor experimentate este posibil abordul
laparoscopic inclusiv la pacienții cu splenomegalii masive (>20cm), care poate fi asistat manual.Aim of study. Study of cases of splenectomy by laparoscopic and classic approach in order to establish causality type procedureperioperative
incidents and demonstrate the superiority of the laparoscopic approach.
Materials and methods. The cases of splenectomy performed by classical and laparoscopic approach in the Colțea Surgery Clinic,
period 01.01.2019-31.12.2022, were selected. We reviewed intraoperative films, assessed general and local factors associated with
the preferred surgical approach.
Results. 29 cases were selected, average age 54.8 years, 72.4% women, 27.6% men, 55.2% (16) with multiple comorbidities: major
surgical antecedents, heart failure, severe bronchial asthma, etc. The cases were divided into 2 groups: Gr. I- with laparoscopic approach 34.5% (10), Gr. II- with classic approach 65.5% (19). The incidence of comorbidities was 10% (1) in Gr.I, with mean spleen
size of 13.2 cm (min 8.5 cm, max 21 cm) and 84.2% (16) in Gr.II with mean spleen size of 20.4 cm (min 10 cm, max 34 cm). Only in
Gr.II, intraoperative bleeding was recorded in 78.9% (15), and in 15.8% (3) there were postoperative complications. The patients in Gr.
I had an average postoperative hospitalization period of 4 days, and those in Gr. II of 7 days, and were discharged with a favorable
postoperative evolution.
Conclusions. The laparoscopic approach has the same indications as the classic one according to EAES, with the advantage
of reduced perioperative complications and a shorter postoperative hospitalization, and in the case of experienced teams, the
laparoscopic approach is possible, including patients with massive splenomegaly (>20cm), being manually assisted
Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic
No full textAim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data.Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58-14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86-36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01-5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32-6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16-10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%).Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks
Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries
No full textBackground: Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods: The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results: A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion: Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)
Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: International matched, prospective, cohort study
No full textIntraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study
No full textMany surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice
Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
No full textBACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas
Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery: An international, prospective cohort study
No full textSafety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. An international, prospective cohort study
No full textIntraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. Method: COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement. Results: Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48-5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61-1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67-2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87-2.99, p = 0.128). Conclusion: This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery
