Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved during the past 40 years with the use of a standardized surgical technique for tumour resection: total mesorectal excision. A dramatic reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes have been achieved as consequences of a better understanding of the surgical oncology of rectal cancer, and the advent of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery have paved the way for a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumour regression, extramural venous invasion and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information. Modern treatment strategies are underpinned by accurate high-resolution imaging guiding both neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery, followed by meticulous pathological scrutiny identifying the important prognostic factors for adjuvant chemotherapy. Included in these strategies are organ-sparing approaches and watch-and-wait strategies in selected patients. These pathways rely on the close working of interlinked disciplines within a multidisciplinary team. Such multidisciplinary forums are becoming standard in the treatment of rectal cancer across the UK, Europe and, more recently, the USA. This Review examines the essential components of modern-day management of rectal cancer through a multidisciplinary team approach, providing information that is essential for any practising colorectal surgeon to guide the best patient care.Rectal cancer treatment has evolved towards a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. This Review examines the essential components of rectal cancer management through a multidisciplinary team, with a focus on the effect of this approach and the elements used for staging and developing the treatment plan.

BackgroundIn the era of competency-based surgical education, VBC has gained increased attention and may enhance the efficacy of surgical education. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the existing evidence of video-based coaching (VBC) and compare VBC to traditional master-apprentice-based surgical education.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing VBC according to the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE and Researchgate databases were searched for eligible manuscripts. Standard mean difference (SMD) of performance scoring scales was used to assess the effect of VBC versus traditional training without VBC (control).ResultsOf 627 studies identified, 24 RCTs were eligible and evaluated. The studies included 778 surgical trainees (n = 386 VBC vs. n = 392 control). 13 performance scoring scales were used to assess technical competence; OSATS-GRS was the most common (n = 15). VBC was provided preoperative (n = 11), intraoperative (n = 1), postoperative (n = 10), and perioperative (n = 2). The majority of studies were unstructured, where identified coaching frameworks were PRACTICE (n = 1), GROW (n = 2) and Wisconsin Coaching Framework (n = 1). There was an effect on performance scoring scales in favor of VBC coaching (SMD 0.87, p < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, the residents had a larger relative effect (SMD 1.13; 0.61–1.65, p < 0.001) of VBC compared to medical students (SMD 0.43, 0.06–0.81, p < 0.001). The greatest source of potential bias was absence of blinding of the participants and personnel (n = 20).ConclusionVideo-based coaching increases technical performance of medical students and surgical residents. There exist significant study and intervention heterogeneity that warrants further exploration, showing the need to structure and standardize video-based coaching tools.

BackgroundAmid increasing awareness of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), guidelines in the United States (US) recently lowered the recommended routine CRC screening age from 50 to 45 in average-risk individuals. There are little data on the number of patients in this age group diagnosed with CRC prior to these changes. Our objective was to audit the historic CRC case trends and impact of CRC in the 45-to-50-year-old category prior to new screening recommendations.MethodsColorectal adenocarcinoma cases in 45-to-50-year-old patients were queried from the NCDB (2004–2017). Cases were stratified by sex, race, and site. The disability-adjusted lost years (DALY) and lost earnings were estimated. The average annual percentage changes (AAPC) of CRC incidence were estimated using jointpoint analysis. The main outcome measures were DALY and lost earnings. Secondary outcome measures were the 2004–2017 AAPC and the cumulative incidence of potential CRC cases in the 45-to-50 cohort through 2030 without guideline changes.Results67,442 CRC patients in the 45-to-50 demographic were identified. The CRC burden resulted 899,905 DALY and $17 billion in lost earnings. The 2004–2017 AAPC was 1.6%, with an estimated 13-year increase of 25%. There were sex-, race-, and anatomic site-specific discrepancies with estimated 13-year increases of 30% for males, 110% for American Indian/ Alaska Natives/ Asian American/ Pacific Islander races, and 31% for rectal cancer by 2030.ConclusionCRC has been steadily increasing in the 45-to-50 age group, with tremendous disability and cost ensuing. There is great potential benefit from lowering the recommended routine CRC screening age to 45. Targeted intervention could ensure the most vulnerable segments benefit from the new guidelines, in both reducing the incidence and improving survivorship in CRC patients.

Background Surgical value is based on optimizing clinical and financial outcomes. The clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established; however, many patients are still not offered a laparoscopic procedure. Our objective was to compare the modern clinical and financial outcomes of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Methods The Premier Perspective database identified patients undergoing elective colorectal resections from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. Cases were stratified by operative approach into laparoscopic and open cohorts. Groups were controlled on all demographics, diagnosis, procedural, hospital characteristics, surgeon volume, and surgeon specialty and then compared for clinical and financial outcomes. The main outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), complications, readmission rates, and cost by surgical approach. Results A total of 6343 patients were matched and analyzed in each cohort. The most common diagnosis was diverticulitis ( p  = 0.0835) and the most common procedure a sigmoidectomy ( p  = 0.0962). The LOS was significantly shorter in laparoscopic compared to open (mean 5.78 vs. 7.80 days, p  < 0.0001). The laparoscopic group had significantly lower readmission (5.82 vs. 7.68 %, p  < 0.0001), complication (32.60 vs. 42.28 %, p  < 0.0001), and mortality rates (0.52 vs. 1.28 %, p  < 0.0001). The total cost was significantly lower in laparoscopic than in open (mean $17,269 vs. $20,552, p  < 0.0001). By category, laparoscopy was significantly more cost-effective for pharmacy ( p  < 0.0001), room and board ( p  < 0.0001), recovery room ( p  = 0.0058), ICU ( p  < 0.0001), and laboratory and imaging services (both p  < 0.0001). Surgical supplies ( p  < 0.0001), surgery ( p  < 0.0001), and anesthesia ( p  = 0.0053) were higher for the laparoscopic group. Conclusions Laparoscopy is more cost-effective and produces better patient outcomes than open colorectal surgery. Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is now the standard that should be offered to patients, providing value to both patient and provider.

BackgroundAs the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.MethodsExpert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology.ResultOlder adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery.ConclusionsMIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Background The elderly constitute the majority of both colorectal cancer and surgical volume. Despite established safety and feasibility, laparoscopy may remain underutilized for colorectal cancer resections in the elderly. With proven benefits, increasing laparoscopy in elderly colorectal cancer patients could substantially improve outcomes. Our goal was to evaluate utilization and outcomes for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly. Methods A national inpatient database was reviewed for elective inpatient resections for colorectal cancer from 2010 to 2015. Patients were stratified into elderly (≥ 65 years) and non-elderly cohorts (< 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcomes were trends in utilization by approach and total costs, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models were used to control for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Results Laparoscopic adoption for colorectal cancer in the elderly increased gradually until 2013, then declined, with simultaneously increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy significantly improved all primary outcomes compared to open surgery (all p  < 0.01). From the adjusted analysis, laparoscopy reduced complications by 30%, length of stay by 1.99 days, and total costs by $3276/admission. Laparoscopic patients were 34% less likely to be readmitted; when readmitted, the episodes were less expensive when index procedure was laparoscopic. Conclusion The adoption of laparoscopy for colorectal cancer surgery in the elderly is slow and even declining recently. In addition to the clinical benefits, there are reduced overall costs, creating a tremendous value proposition if use can be expanded. Precis This national contemporary study shows the slow uptake and recent decline in adaption of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly, despite the benefits in clinical outcomes and costs found. This data can be used to target education, regionalization, and quality improvement efforts in this expanding population.

Alvimopan's goal is to minimize postoperative ileus and optimize outcomes; however, evidence in laparoscopic surgery is lacking. Our goal was to evaluate the benefit of alvimopan in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP). Laparoscopic colorectal cases were stratified into alvimopan and control cohorts, then case-matched for comparability. All followed an identical ERP. The main outcomes were length of stay, complications, readmissions, and costs in the alvimopan and control groups. About 321 patients were analyzed in each cohort. Operative times were comparable (P = .08). Postoperatively, complication rates were similar (P = .29), with no difference in ileus (P = 1.00). The length of stay (3.69 vs 3.49 days; P = .16), readmission (2.8% vs 3.7%; P = .66) and reoperation rates (2.2% vs 1.6%; P = .77) were comparable for alvimopan and controls, respectively. Total costs were similar ($14,932.47 alvimopan vs $14,846.56 controls; P = .90), but the additional costs in the alvimopan group could translate to savings of $27,577 in the cohort. Alvimopan added no benefit in patient outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an ERP. These results could drive a change in current practice. Controlled studies are warranted to define the cost and/or benefit in clinical practice. •A case-matched study laparoscopic colorectal study assessed the impact of alvimopan.•Adding alvimopan had no impact on length of stay, ileus, or readmissions.•Alvimopan added an expense without benefit in overall costs or patient outcomes.•Controlled studies are sought for definitive recommendations with opioid-sparing ERP.

Our objective was to assess clinical and financial outcomes with long-acting liposomal bupicavaine (LB) in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Patients that received local infiltration with LB were strictly matched to a control group, and compared for postoperative pain, opioid use, length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. A total of 70 patients were evaluated in each cohort. Operative times and conversion rates were similar. LB patients had lower post-anesthesia care unit pain scores (P = .001) and used less opioids through postoperative day 3 (day 0 P < .01; day 1 P = .03; day 2 P = .02; day 3 P < .01). Daily pain scores were comparable. LB had shorter LOS (mean 2.96 vs 3.93 days; P = .003) and trended toward lower readmission, complication, and reoperation rates. Total costs/patient were $746 less with LB, a savings of $52,200 across the cohort. Using local wound infiltration with LB, opioid use, LOS, and costs were improved after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The additional medication cost was overshadowed by the overall cost benefits. Incorporating LB into a multimodal pain regiment had a benefit on patient outcomes and health care utilization. •We performed a case-matched study to assess postoperative pain, opioid use, length of stay, hospital costs, complication, readmission, and reoperation rates with long-acting liposomal bupicavaine (LB) in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. With LB, opioid use, length of stay, and costs were improved. The additional medication cost was overshadowed by the overall cost benefits. Incorporating LB into a multimodal pain regiment could benefit patient outcomes and health care utilization.

Background Elderly patients often are regarded as high-risk for major abdominal surgery because of a lack of functional reserve and associated medical comorbidities. The goal of this study was to compare the cost of care and short-term outcomes of elderly and nonelderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Our hypothesis was that elderly patients managed with laparoscopic colorectal surgery and an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) can realize the same benefits of lower hospital length of stay (LOS) without increasing hospital costs or readmission rates. Methods Review of a prospective database identified all patients that underwent an elective laparoscopic colectomy from 2009 to 2012. Patients were stratified into elderly (≥70 years old) and nonelderly (<70 years old) cohorts. The main outcome measures were discharge disposition, hospital costs, hospital LOS, and 30-day readmission rates between the laparoscopic and open groups. Results A total of 302 nonelderly (66 %) and 153 elderly (34 %) patients were included in the analysis. The elderly cohort had significantly higher comorbidities than the nonelderly group. There were no mortalities. Operative variables (procedure time, blood loss, and intraoperative complications) were similar. At discharge, significantly more elderly patients required temporary nursing or home care. There were no significant differences in short-term outcomes of LOS, 30-day readmission rates, or costs for the episode of care between the two groups. Conclusions Combining laparoscopic colectomy with an ERP is cost-effective and results in similar short-term outcomes for the elderly and nonelderly patients. Despite higher comorbidities, elderly patients realized the same benefits of shorter LOS with similar hospital costs and readmission rates.

BackgroundOpioids are a mainstay for postsurgical pain management, but have associated complications and costs, and contribute to the opioid epidemic. While efforts to reduce opioid use exist, little study has been done on opioid utilization and its impact across surgical approaches. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of opioid utilization on quality measures and costs after open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.MethodsThe Premier database was reviewed for inpatient colorectal procedures from January 01, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Procedures were stratified into open and laparoscopic approaches, then “opioid” and “opioid-free” groups within each approach. Univariate analysis compared demographics, outcomes, and cost by opioid use and surgical approach. In the “opioid” groups, opioid consumption and duration were assessed across platforms. Multivariate regression analyzed the association between opioid use and surgical approach on costs and quality outcomes.Results50,098 procedures were evaluated—40.4% laparoscopic and 59.6% open. 6.6% of laparoscopic and 5.3% of open cases were “opioid free.” Across both approaches, patients over 65 were most likely opioid free, while the obese and cancer patients were most likely to use opioids. Length of stay was shorter, and post-discharge nursing needs and total costs were lower in the “opioid-free” group in both approaches (all p < 0.001). The median daily and total opioid consumption were lower with a laparoscopic approach (p < 0.001), which also had a shorter duration of use versus open cases (p < 0.001). Opioids were 20% more likely in open cases. Total costs were 16% greater with opioids and 24% greater in open surgery. Complications were 89% more likely in open surgery. Readmissions were increased by 14% with both opioid use and open surgery.ConclusionsOpioid-free colorectal surgery results in improved outcomes, and laparoscopy further improves these results. Continued efforts to increase laparoscopy are key for reducing opioids and improving outcomes as we transition to value-based care.