30 research outputs found
Correction: Surgeons’ perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey
No full textFollowing publication of the original article [1], in Pub-Med the author name Daniele Bissacco under Team Dynamics Study Group has not been tagged and now it has been rectified
Evaluating the incidence of pathological complete response in current international rectal cancer practice: the barriers to widespread safe deferral of surgery
No full textIntroduction: The mainstay of management for locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, a complete response may be detected clinically and radiologically (cCR) prior to surgery or pathologically after surgery (pCR). We aim to report the overall complete pathological response (pCR) rate and the reliability of detecting a cCR by conventional pre-operative imaging. Methods: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients treated by elective rectal resection were included. A pCR was defined as a ypT0 N0 EMVI negative primary tumour; a partial response represented any regression from baseline staging following chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. The secondary endpoint was agreement between post-treatment MRI restaging (yMRI) and final pathological staging. Results: Of 2572 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 277 participating centres across 44 countries, 673 (26.2%) underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The pCR rate was 10.3% (67/649), with a partial response in 35.9% (233/649) patients. Comparison of AJCC stage determined by post-treatment yMRI with final pathology showed understaging in 13% (55/429) and overstaging in 34% (148/429). Agreement between yMRI and final pathology for T-stage, N-stage, or AJCC status were each graded as ‘fair’ only (n = 429, Kappa 0.25, 0.26 and 0.35 respectively). Conclusion: The reported pCR rate of 10% highlights the potential for non-operative management in selected cases. The limited strength of agreement between basic conventional post-chemoradiotherapy imaging assessment techniques and pathology suggest alternative markers of response should be considered, in the context of controlled clinical trials
The management of complicated colorectal cancer in older patients in a global perspective after COVID-19: the CO-OLDER WSES project
No full textBACKGROUND: Colorectal (CRC) cancer is becoming a disease of the elderly. Ageing is the most significant risk factor for presenting CRC. Early diagnosis of CRC and management is the best way in achieving good outcomes and longer survival but patients aged ≥75 years are usually not screened for CRC. This group of patients is often required to be managed when they are symptomatic in the emergency setting with high morbidity and mortality rates. Our main aim is to provide clinical data about the management of elderly patients presenting complicated colorectal cancer who required emergency surgical management to improve their care. METHODS: The management of complicated COlorectal cancer in OLDER patients (CO-OLDER; ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05788224; evaluated by the local ethical committee CPP EST III-France with the national number 2023-A01094-41) in the emergency setting project provides carrying out an observational multicenter international cohort study aimed to collect data about patients aged ≥75 years to assess modifiable risk factors for negative outcomes and mortality correlated to the emergency surgical management of this group of patients at risk admitted with a complicated (obstructed and perforated) CRC. The CO-OLDER protocol was approved by Institutional Review Board and released. Each CO-OLDER collaborator is asked to enroll ≥25 patients over a study period from 1st January 2018 to 30th October 2023. Data will be analyzed comparing two periods of study: before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. A sample size of 240 prospectively enrolled patients with obstructed colorectal cancer in a 5-month period was calculated. The secured database for entering anonymized data will be available for the period necessary to achieve the highest possible participation. RESULTS: One hundred eighty hospitals asked to be a CO-OLDER collaborator, with 36 potentially involved countries over the world. CONCLUSIONS: The CO-OLDER project aims to improve the management of elderly people presenting with a complicated colorectal cancer in the emergency setting. Our observational global study can provide valuable data on the effectiveness of different management strategies in improving primary assessment, management and outcomes for elderly patients with obstructed or perforated colorectal cancer in the emergency setting, guiding clinical decision-making. This information can help healthcare providers make informed decisions about the best course of action for these patients
An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020
No full textAim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation
The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit
No full textBackground: Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. Methods: Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day major complication rate, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III-V. Results: Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27–2.11, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection
An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)
No full textIntroduction: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results: Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion: This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results
An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019-2020.
No full textThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.
An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019-2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 ('rarely') to 4 ('always'). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.
Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they 'most often' or 'always' adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from 'rarely' to 'always' in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.
Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation
Towards safer colorectal surgery worldwide: Outcomes and benchmarks from the ESCP CORREA 2022 audit
No full textIntroduction: Benchmarking colorectal surgery outcomes informs quality improvement. The ESCP CORREA 2022 snapshot audit aimed to assess contemporary colorectal resection practices and short-term outcomes across European countries and beyond. Methods: An international prospective multicentre audit was conducted in which adults undergoing elective or emergency colorectal resection during a 6-week period (January-April 2022) at participating hospitals were included. Data on patient demographics, indications, surgical approach (open, laparoscopic or robotic) and 30-day postoperative outcomes (complications, reoperation and mortality) were collected for analysis. The outcomes were analysed and compared with those of previous audits to identify trends in colorectal surgery. Results: The study enrolled 3521 patients (56.8% men) from 216 hospitals across 53 countries. In 72.2% of the cases, the indication for resection was malignancy, followed by diverticular disease in 9.0%, Crohn's disease in 3.7% and ulcerative colitis in 2.3% of the cases. Of the surgeries, 74.4% were elective. Minimally invasive surgery was performed in 55.2% of the cases (48.7% laparoscopic and 6.5% robotic). Primary anastomosis was performed in 90.3% of the patients. The 30-day anastomotic leak rate was 7.96%; in malignant and benign diseases, the leak rates were 7.3% and 10.2%, respectively. The leak rates for right, left, anterior rectal resection, pouch and subtotal colectomy were 6.9%, 7.7%, 9.7%, 16.0% and 11.8%, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, the risk factors for leakage included male sex (9.3% vs. 6.3%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.95, p = 0.023) and emergency surgery (11.4% vs. 7.1%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.10-2.27, p = 0.013). Thirty-day mortality was 2.38%. Conclusions: This large international audit provides the status of the management of colorectal surgery. This shows that minimally invasive techniques are widely adopted, and 30-day mortality is low; however, anastomotic leak rates remain persistently high. These findings highlight the ongoing need for targeted research and quality-improvement initiatives to reduce anastomotic failure and improve outcomes of colorectal surgery
Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study
No full textFunded by DFID-MRC-Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trial Development Grant (MR/N022114/1) and a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit Grant (NIHR 17-0799)
Surgeons’ perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey
No full textBackground: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons’ knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods: An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society’s website and Twitter profile. Results: 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons’ preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion: The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI
