Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ® ) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS ® protocol. Methods A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results All recommendations on ERAS ® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly. Conclusions The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS ® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced-based enhanced perioperative protocol. Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English-language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group. Results For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials (quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system). Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery.

Minimally invasive approach for reversal of Hartmann's procedure remains understudied. This study examined the outcomes associated with open and minimally invasive approaches for colostomy reversal in a national cohort. The 2012-2022 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant use file data was queried to identify all adult (≥18 years) patients undergoing elective open or minimally invasive colostomy takedown. Multivariable regression models were developed to assess the associations between operative modalities and outcomes of interest, including overall complications (cardiac, respiratory, infectious, wound, renal and thromboembolic postoperative sequelae as well as reoperation and transfusion), operative duration, postoperative length of stay, and 30-day Readmissions. Among the 20,163 patients who underwent colostomy takedown during the study period, 6,180 (30.7%) had a minimally invasive reversal. Utilization of minimally invasive colostomy reversal increased from 18.2% in 2012 to 41.9% in 2022 (nptrend < 0.001). Following risk adjustment, minimally invasive colostomy takedown was associated with reduced odds of overall complications compared to the open approach (AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.62). The minimally invasive approach was associated with decremental operative duration by 16.9 minutes (95% CI 13.6 to 20.2 minutes) and postoperative length of stay by 1.70 days (95% CI 1.56 to 1.84 days), as well as decreased odds of 30-day readmission (AOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). Over the past decade, utilization of minimally invasive colostomy reversal has more than doubled and yielded lower overall complication rates compared to the open approach. Our findings suggest that the minimally invasive approach may be appropriate for colostomy takedown in suitable cases.

A randomized, multicenter trial that compared endovascular repair with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm showed no significant difference between these approaches in overall survival after 8 years.

BackgroundCost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery is still debatable. Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopic repair. We performed a comprehensive cost-analysis comparison between the two approaches for evaluation of their cost-effectiveness in a large healthcare system in the Western United States.MethodsHealth records in 32 hospitals were queried for procedural costs of inguinal hernia repairs between January 2015 and March 2017. Elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were included. Cost calculations were done using a utilization-based costing model. Total cost included: fixed cost, which comprises medical device and personnel costs, and variable cost, which comprises disposables and reusable instruments costs. Other outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), conversion to open, and operative times. Statistics were done using t test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsA total of 2405 cases, 734 robotic-assisted (633 Primary: 101 recurrent) and 1671 laparoscopic (1471 Primary: 200 recurrent), were included. The average total cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted group ($5517) compared to the laparoscopic group ($3269). However, the average laparoscopic variable cost ($1105) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the robotic-assisted cost ($933). Whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for LOS and conversion to open, average operative times were significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias matched the overall results.ConclusionsRobotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has a significantly higher cost and significantly longer operative times, compared to the laparoscopic approach. The study has shown that only fixed cost contributes to the cost difference between the two approaches. Medical device cost plus the longer operative times are the main factors driving the cost difference. Laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is more cost-effective compared to a robotic-assisted approach.

Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in rectal/pelvic surgery, and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced-based enhanced recovery protocol. Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English-language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group. Results For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials (evidence grade: high or moderate). Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of perioperative care for rectal surgery.

Aims: Many countries experience persistent or increasing socioeconomic disparities in specialist care. This study examines the socioeconomic distribution of elective surgery from 1992 to 2003 in Finland. Methods: Administrative registers were used to identify common elective procedures performed in all public and private hospitals in Finland in 1992-2003. Patients' individual sociodemographic data came from 1990-2003 census and employment statistics databases. First coronary revascularisation, hip and knee replacement, lumbar disc operation, cataract extraction, hysterectomy and prostatectomy on residents aged 25-84 years were analysed. Age-standardized procedure rates by income quintile were calculated for both genders, and concentration indices were developed and applied to age-standardized procedure rates in 5% income groups for each study year. Results: Most procedure rates increased during the study period. Three trends emerged: declining inequality for coronary revascularisations, an increase and then a decline in cataract extractions and primary knee replacements among men, and positive relationships between income and treatment for hysterectomy and lumbar disc operations. Conclusions: Our results suggest that structural features - uneven availability, co-payments and plurality of provision - sustain inequity in access; decreasing inequities reflect directed service expansion. Increased attention to collective, prospective funding of primary and specialist ambulatory care is required to increase equity of access to elective surgery.

Background This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. Methods Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS ® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS ® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. Results Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. Conclusions These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS ® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess whether a clinically relevant difference exists in patients’ perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sports over a period of two years after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) between two commonly used treatment regimens.DesignOpen labelled, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial (COMPARE).SettingSix hospitals in the Netherlands, between May 2011 and April 2016.ParticipantsPatients aged 18 to 65 with an acute rupture of the ACL, recruited from six hospitals. Patients were evaluated at three, six, nine, 12, and 24 months.Interventions85 patients were randomised to early ACL reconstruction and 82 to rehabilitation followed by optional delayed ACL reconstruction after a three month period (primary non-operative treatment).Main outcomesPatients’ perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sporting activities were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score (optimum score 100) at each time point over 24 months.ResultsBetween May 2011 and April 2016, 167 patients were enrolled in the study and randomised to one of two treatments (mean age 31.3; 67 (40.%) women), and 163 (98%) completed the trial. In the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group, 41 (50%) patients underwent reconstruction during follow-up. After 24 months, the early ACL reconstruction group had a significantly better (P=0.026) but not clinically relevant International Knee Documentation Committee score (84.7 v 79.4 (difference between groups 5.3, 95% confidence interval 0.6 to 9.9). After three months of follow-up, the International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly better (P=0.002) for the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group (difference between groups −9.3, −14.6 to −4.0). After nine months of follow-up, the difference in the International Knee Documentation Committee score changed in favour of the early ACL reconstruction group. After 12 months, differences between the groups were smaller. In the early ACL reconstruction group, four re-ruptures and three ruptures of the contralateral ACL occurred during follow-up versus two re-ruptures and one rupture of the contralateral ACL in the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group.ConclusionsIn patients with acute rupture of the ACL, those who underwent early surgical reconstruction, compared with rehabilitation followed by elective surgical reconstruction, had improved perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sports at the two year follow-up. This finding was significant (P=0.026) but the clinical importance is unclear. Interpretation of the results of the study should consider that 50% of the patients randomised to the rehabilitation group did not need surgical reconstruction.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL 2618.

Background The utilization of minimally invasive surgery is increasing in colorectal surgery. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic total abdominal colectomy. Methods The NIS database was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent an elective total colectomy procedure during 2009–2012. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches. Results We sampled a total of 26,721 patients who underwent elective total colectomy. Of these, 16,780 (62.8 %) had an open operation, while 9934 (37.2 %) had a minimally invasive approach (9614 laparoscopic surgery, and 326 robotic surgery). The most common indication for an operation was ulcerative colitis (31 %). Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly higher mortality and morbidity compared to laparoscopic (AOR 2.48, 1.30, P  < 0.01) and robotic approaches (AOR 1.04, 1.30, P  < 0.01 and P  = 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality and morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches (AOR 0.96, 1.03, P  = 0.10, P  = 0.78). However, conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery to open was significantly higher than that of robotic approach (13.3 vs. 1.5 %, P  < 0.01). Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower total hospital charges compared to patients who underwent open surgery (mean difference = $21,489, P  < 0.01). Also, total hospital charges for a robotic approach were significantly higher than for a laparoscopic approach (mean difference = $15,595, P  < 0.01). Conclusion Minimally invasive approaches to total colectomy are safe, with the advantage of lower mortality and morbidity compared to an open approach. Although there was no significant difference in the morbidity between minimally invasive approaches, robotic surgery had a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic approach. Total hospital charges are significantly higher in robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic approach.