Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to assess colorectal surgery outcomes, discharge destination, and readmission in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Adult colorectal surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2019-2020) and its colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted files were included. The prepandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The pandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 in quarterly intervals (Q2 April-June; Q3 July-September; Q4 October-December). Factors associated with morbidity and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:Among 62,393 patients, 34,810 patients (55.8%) underwent colorectal surgery prepandemic and 27,583 (44.2%) during the pandemic. Patients who had surgery during the pandemic had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presented more frequently with dependent functional status. The proportion of emergent surgeries increased (12.7% prepandemic versus 15.2% pandemic, P < 0.001), with less laparoscopic cases (54.0% versus 51.0%, P < 0.001). Higher rates of morbidity with a greater proportion of discharges to home and lesser proportion of discharges to skilled care facilities were observed with no considerable differences in length of stay or worsening readmission rates. Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of overall and serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality, during Q3 and/or Q4 of the 2020 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:Differences in hospital presentation, inpatient care, and discharge disposition of colorectal surgery patients were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic responses should emphasize balancing resource allocation, educating patients and providers on timely medical workup and management, and optimizing discharge coordination pathways.

BACKGROUND:Readmission after ileostomy creation in colorectal surgery patients creates a significant burden on healthcare cost and patient quality of care, with a 30-day readmission rate noted to be as high as 40%. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to evaluate the implementation of our perioperative quality improvement Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Program. DESIGN/METHODS:Perioperative interventions were administered to patients who underwent ileostomy creation. SETTING/METHODS:This was a single tertiary care academic center. PATIENTS/METHODS:There were 80 patients participated in this program from February 2020 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The primary outcomes measured were 30-day readmission rates and causes of readmission, which were compared to a historical national database. Descriptive statistics were utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of this quality improvement program. RESULTS:Eighty patients were enrolled in this prospective quality improvement program. The mean age was 52 (± 15.06) years. The most common indication for patients undergoing creation of an ileostomy was colorectal cancer (40%, n = 32). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 8.75% (n = 7) throughout the study period which was significantly lower than historical cohort data (20.10%, p = 0.01). Among the 7 readmitted patients, three (3.75%) were readmitted due to dehydration. The most significant associated risk factor for all-cause readmission was urgent/emergent operative status, which was associated with an increased risk of readmission (p = 0.01). The three readmitted patients with dehydration had an average Dehydration Readmission after Ileostomy Prediction risk score of 11.71 points, compared to non-dehydrated patients, who did not require readmission (mean, 9.59 points, p = 0.38). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study is limited by its small sample size (n = 80). CONCLUSIONS:The Decreasing Readmissions After Ileostomy Creation Program has been successful in reducing both the all-cause readmission rate and readmission due to dehydration both within an academic tertiary care referral center and in comparison to historical readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B894.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of his study was to report on a cohort of patients managed with nonoperative management (NOM) with a watch-and-wait strategy after achieving complete response (CR) to sequential short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) and consolidation chemotherapy. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients treated SCRT and chemotherapy who achieved a CR and were managed with NOM. Bowel function was assessed with European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer 29, and the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), freedom from local failure (FFLF), freedom from distant metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS:Twenty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Seven (26.9%) patients developed local failure at a median of 6.8 months following CR, of which 5 were successfully salvaged. Median FFLF was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year FFLF rates of 100.0%, 82.3%, and 71.3%. Median OS was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year OS rates of 100%. Median DFS was not reached, with 6-month, 1-, and 2-year DFS rates of 100%, 95.0%, and 89.4%. Questionnaire response rate was 83.3%. Median LARS score was 27. Major, minor, and no LARS occurred in 3 (20%), 6 (40%), and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. There were no differences in questionnaire scores between patients who had the majority of their anal sphincter complex irradiated and those who did not. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:NOM with a watch-and-wait strategy is safe and feasible in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve CR after sequential SCRT and chemotherapy, with evidence for good anorectal function.

BACKGROUND:Colorectal surgery patients with ulcerative colitis are at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism. Extended prophylaxis for thromboembolism prevention has been used in colorectal surgery patients, but it has been criticized for its lack of cost-effectiveness. However, the cost-effectiveness of extended prophylaxis for postoperative ulcerative colitis patients may be unique. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of extended prophylaxis in postoperative ulcerative colitis patients. DESIGN:A decision analysis compared costs and benefits in postoperative ulcerative colitis patients with and without extended prophylaxis over a lifetime horizon. SETTING:Assumptions for decision analysis were identified from available literature for a typical ulcerative colitis patient's risk of thrombosis, age at surgery, type of thrombosis, prophylaxis risk reduction, bleeding complications, and mortality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Costs ($) and benefits (quality-adjusted life year) reflected a societal perspective and were time-discounted at 3%. Costs and benefits were combined to produce the main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($ per quality-adjusted life year). Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis modeled uncertainty in probabilities, costs, and disutilities. RESULTS:Using reference parameters, the individual expected societal total cost of care was $957 without and $1775 with prophylaxis (not cost-effective; $257,280 per quality-adjusted life year). Preventing a single mortality with prophylaxis would cost $5 million (number needed to treat: 6134 individuals). Adjusting across a range of scenarios upheld these conclusions 77% of the time. With further sensitivity testing, venous thromboembolism cumulative risk (>1.5%) and ePpx regimen pricing (<$299) were the 2 parameters most sensitive to uncertainty. LIMITATIONS:Recommendations of decision analysis methodology are limited to group decision-making, not an individual risk profile. CONCLUSION:Routine ePpx in postoperative ulcerative colitis patients is not cost-effective. This finding is sensitive to higher-than-average rates of venous thromboembolism and low-cost prophylaxis opportunities. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B818. SE APLICAN LAS LIMITACIONES DE COSTOS DE LA PROFILAXIS PROLONGADA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA A LOS PACIENTES CON COLITIS ULCEROSA:ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes de cirugía colorrectal con colitis ulcerosa tienen un mayor riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso posoperatorio. La profilaxis extendida para la prevención de la tromboembolia se ha utilizado en pacientes con cirugía colorrectal, aunque ha sido criticada por su falta de rentabilidad. Sin embargo, la rentabilidad de la profilaxis prolongada para los pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa puede ser aceptable.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la rentabilidad de la profilaxis prolongada en pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa.DISEÑO:Un análisis de decisiones comparó los costos y beneficios en pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa con y sin profilaxis prolongada de por vida.AJUSTE:Los supuestos para el análisis de decisiones se identificaron a partir de la literatura disponible para el riesgo de trombosis de un paciente con colitis ulcerosa típica, la edad al momento de la cirugía, el tipo de trombosis, la reducción del riesgo con profilaxis, las complicaciones hemorrágicas y la mortalidad.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los costos ($) y los beneficios (año de vida ajustado por calidad) reflejaron una perspectiva social y se descontaron en el tiempo al 3%. Los costos y los beneficios se combinaron para producir la principal medida de resultado, la relación costo-efectividad incremental ($ por año de vida ajustado por calidad). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilística multivariable modeló la incertidumbre en probabilidades, costos y desutilidades.RESULTADOS:Utilizando parámetros de referencia, el costo total de atención social esperado individual fue de $957 sin profilaxis y $1775 con profilaxis (no rentable; $257,280 por año de vida ajustado por calidad). La prevención de una sola mortalidad con profilaxis costaría $5.0 millones (número necesario a tratar: 6.134 personas). El ajuste en una variedad de escenarios mantuvo estas conclusiones el 77% de las veces. Con más pruebas de sensibilidad, el riesgo acumulado de TEV (>1,5%) y el precio del régimen de ePpx (<$299) fueron los dos parámetros más sensibles a la incertidumbre.LIMITACIONES:Las recomendaciones de la metodología de análisis de decisiones se limitan a la toma de decisiones en grupo, no a un perfil de riesgo individual.CONCLUSIÓN:La profilaxis extendida de rutina en pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa no es rentable. Este hallazgo es sensible a tasas de TEV superiores al promedio y oportunidades de profilaxis de bajo costo. Consulted Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B818. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

BACKGROUND:The worsening opioid epidemic has led to an increased number of surgical patients with chronic preoperative opioid use. However, the impact of opioids on perioperative outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between preoperative opioid dose and surgical outcomes among colectomy patients. METHODS:Adult colectomy patients in the IBM MarketScan database (2010-2017) were stratified based on preoperative opioid dose, calculated as the average opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the 90 days prior to surgery: 0 MME, 1 to 49 MME, and 50 or more MME. The association between preoperative opioid dose and anastomotic leak, the primary outcome of interest, as well as other postoperative complications, was assessed using multivariable regression. RESULTS:Among 45,515 adult colectomy patients, 71.4% did not use opioids (0 MME), 27.4% had an opioid dose between 1 and 49 MME, and 1.2% had an opioid dose at or above 50 MME. Patients with preoperative opioid use exhibited a higher incidence of anastomotic leak (0 MME: 4.8%, 1-49 MME: 5.5%, ≥50 MME: 8.3%; p trend = 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between preoperative opioids and surgical outcomes, as the odds of anastomotic leak worsened with increasing opioid dose (1-49 MME: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p < 0.001; ≥50 MME: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, p = 0.002). Similar dose-response relationships were seen after risk-adjustment for lung complications, pneumonia, delirium, and 30-day readmission (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:Providers should exercise caution when prescribing opioids preoperatively, as increasing doses of preoperative opioids were associated with worse surgical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission among adult colectomy patients.

BACKGROUND:The prognostic implication of mutant KRAS (mKRAS) among patients with primary disease in the rectum remains unknown. METHODS:From 2000 to 2018, patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases at 10 collaborating international institutions with documented KRAS status were surveyed. RESULTS:A total of 834 (65.8%) patients with primary colon cancer and 434 (34.2%) patients with primary rectal cancer were included. In patients with primary colon cancer, mKRAS served as a reliable prognostic biomarker of poor overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.95) in the multivariable analysis. Although a trend towards significance was noted, mKRAS was not found to be an independent predictor of OS in patients with primary rectal tumors (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.98-1.80). For colon cancer, the specific codon impacted in mKRAS appears to reflect underlying disease biology and oncologic outcomes, with codon 13 being associated with particularly poor OS in patients with left-sided tumors (codon 12, HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.22-1.99; codon 13, HR 2.10 95% CI 1.43-3.08;). Stratifying the rectal patient population by codon mutation did not confer prognostic significance following hepatectomy. CONCLUSIONS:While the left-sided colonic disease is frequently grouped with rectal disease, our analysis suggests that there exist fundamental biologic differences that drive disparate outcomes. Although there was a trend toward significance of KRAS mutations for patients with primary rectal cancers, it failed to achieve statistical significance.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:There has been a noted reluctance to offer laparoscopic surgery to Crohn's Disease patients due to the potential risks, and high rate, of converting the procedure to open. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between Crohn's Disease patients undergoing a planned open colectomy, to those undergoing a laparoscopic colectomy that was converted to open. METHODS:Crohn's Disease patients undergoing an elective colectomy were identified using the ACS-NSQIP database (2012-2019). Patients were stratified based on operative approach: open, laparoscopic, and laparoscopic converted to open. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of conversion to open on overall and serious postoperative morbidity. RESULTS:Among 8039 elective colectomies, 40.5% were performed open, 46.9% were completed laparoscopically, and 12.6% were converted to open. The conversion rate among all laparoscopic cases was 21.3%. On unadjusted analysis, conversion to open demonstrated similar rates of overall morbidity (P = 0.355) and serious morbidity (P = 0.724) compared to a planned open approach. On multivariable analysis, conversion to open was not associated with increased odds of overall morbidity (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P = 0.238) or serious morbidity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98-1.46, P = 0.074), when compared to an open approach. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among Crohn's Disease patients, cases converted from laparoscopic to open exhibited similar outcomes as a planned open approach. Despite the limitations associated with this retrospective study, our findings suggest that laparoscopic surgery may be safely pursued among Crohn's Disease patients, as the risks of conversion are potentially balanced by the benefits of laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND:Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgical delays on short- and long-term survival among colon cancer patients. METHODS:Adult patients undergoing surgery for stage I, II, or III colon cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). After categorization by wait times from diagnosis to surgery (<1 week, 1-3 weeks, 3-6 weeks, 6-9 weeks, 9-12 weeks, and >12 weeks), 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival were compared between patients both overall and after stratification by pathological disease stage. RESULTS:< .001 for all). Subgroup analysis after stratification by disease stage demonstrated that patients with stage III colon cancer were able to wait up to 9 weeks before exhibiting worse 5-year overall survival, compared to 6 weeks for patients with stage I or II disease. CONCLUSIONS:Colon cancer patients should undergo surgery 3-6 weeks after diagnosis, as all surgical delays beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival.