7 research outputs found
Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Surgery in Madrid
No full textIntroduction The Covid-19 pandemic has had an important impact on colorectal cancer surgery, for hospital resources had to be redistributed in favour of Covid-19 patients. The aim of the present study is to analyze our results in colorectal oncologic surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic in patients with and without perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods In total, 32 patients (19 male and 13 female patients), with a mean age of 64 years (range: 57.2 to 69.5 years) with colorectal cancer underwent surgery under the recommendations of surgical societies included in a protocol. Data collection included clinical characteristics (gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location, preoperative staging, lymphopenia), data related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (postoperative symptoms, diagnostic tests), operative details (surgical procedure, approach, duration, stoma), pathological outcomes (tumor stage, number of lymph nodes harvested, distal and circumferential radial margins, quality of the total mesorectal excision), and surgical outcomes (morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and the rates of reoperation and readmission).
Results A total of 3 (9.4%) patients who underwent colorectal surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic were infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the postoperative period. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with Covid-19 (6.2% versus 33.3%; p = 0.042), and surgical morbidity was higher among Covid-19 patients (100% versus 37.9%; p = 0.039). There were not significant differences between COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients in relation to the rest of the analyzed outcomes.
Conclusion During the Covid-19 pandemic, colorectal cancer surgery should be performed according to the recommendations of surgical societies. However, Covid-19 patients could present a higher morbidity rate
Diverticulitis with abscess formation: Outcomes of non-operative management and nomogram for predicting emergency surgery: The Diplicab Study Collaborative Group.
No full text20.500.12530/87909To assess short- and long-term outcomes from non-surgical management of diverticulitis with abscess formation and to develop a nomogram to predict emergency surgery. This nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed in 29 Spanish referral centers, including patients with a first episode of a diverticular abscess (modified Hinchey Ib-II) from 2015 to 2019. Emergency surgery, complications, and recurrent episodes were analyzed. Regression analysis was used to assess risk factors, and a nomogram for emergency surgery was designed. Overall, 1,395 patients were included (1,078 Hinchey Ib and 317 Hinchey II). Most (1,184, 84.9%) patients were treated with antibiotics without percutaneous drainage, and 194 (13.90%) patients required emergency surgery during admission. Percutaneous drainage (208 patients) was associated with a lower risk of emergency surgery in patients with abscesses of ≥5 cm (19.9% vs 29.3%, P = .035; odds ratio 0.59 [0.37-0.96]). The multivariate analysis showed that immunosuppression treatment, C-reactive protein (odds ratio: 1.003; 1.001-1.005), free pneumoperitoneum (odds ratio: 3.01; 2.04-4.44), Hinchey II (odds ratio: 2.15; 1.42-3.26), abscess size 3 to 4.9 cm (odds ratio: 1.87; 1.06-3.29), abscess size ≥5 cm (odds ratio: 3.62; 2.08-6.32), and use of morphine (odds ratio: 3.68; 2.29-5.92) were associated with emergency surgery. A nomogram was developed with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.85). Percutaneous drainage must be considered in abscesses ≥5 cm to reduce emergency surgery rates; however, there are insufficient data to recommend it in smaller abscesses. The use of the nomogram could help the surgeon develop a targeted approach
Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey
No full text: The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results
Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey
No full textProtective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum (PICARR): a decision-making exploring international survey
No full text: In our previous survey of experts, surgeon's decision-making process (DMP) about protective ileostomy (PI) creation after anterior resection was investigated. Based on our previous data, a multiple choice questionnaire has been developed. The aim is to perform a quantitative analysis of the results obtained from an international survey and to describe the clinical practice worldwide. Ten questions were related to participants' demographics and, 20 questions (of which 17 Likert scale questions) investigated the DMP regarding PI creation. To evaluate the tendency of the answers in the Likert-type questions, the mean of the answers obtained was compared with the mean point of the Likert scale. The survey was completed by 1019 physicians. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge ≤ 10 cm were each considered alone sufficient to justify creation of a PI, with statistically significant differences in comparison to the mean point of the scales in (p = < 0.0001 in both cases). Total Mesorectal Excision alone was not considered a factor sufficient to create a PI (p = 0.416). Most of the participants agree to define their approach to create a PI "tailored" to patients' risk factors (p = < 0.0001) and "influenced by my experience" in case of patients with low/moderate risk of anastomotic leakage (p = < 0.0001). This study provides useful insights on the worldwide clinical practice regarding creation of PI following anterior resection. Given the lack of standardization and evidence-based guidelines, this analysis may be helpful to assist surgeons' practice
Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey
No full textBackground
The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic.
Methods
The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice.
Results
A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not.
Conclusions
Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care
