BJS Open最新文献

Background: Consensus on patient selection for elective colonic resection in patients with chronic diverticular disease is lacking. Early identification of patients who require surgery eventually enables timely elective resection, which could decrease the chronic diverticular disease burden. This register-based nationwide cohort study aimed to investigate the incidence of emergency and elective colonic resections or stoma formation in patients with chronic diverticular disease and explore predictors for surgery.

Methods: The study included all patients with chronic diverticular disease in Denmark from 1996 to 2020, defined as patients with two or more hospital contacts due to diverticular disease. The incidence of surgery due to chronic diverticular disease was calculated as cumulative incidence proportions. Predictors for surgery were explored in a Cox proportional hazard model.

Results: A total of 33 951 patients with chronic diverticular disease were included. The overall 5-year cumulative incidence proportion of surgery was 13.9% (elective surgery 9.8%, emergency surgery 4.2%). Patients with complicated chronic diverticular disease, including fistula, stenosis or perforation, had a three- to six-fold higher incidence of surgery overall than patients with uncomplicated chronic diverticular disease. The incidence of elective surgery decreased with age and co-morbidity and increased with the number of emergency admissions, even more pronounced if the emergency admissions accumulated within a shorter interval.

Conclusion: Patients with chronic diverticular disease should be considered for elective colonic resection if they have complicated disease or several hospital contacts as they are likely to undergo surgery eventually.

Background: The growing demand for surgical resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma highlights the need to understand the impact of preoperative frailty on surgical outcomes. The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to investigate the association between frailty and short- and long-term outcomes after hepatic resection among elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods: A multicentre analysis was conducted on elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (aged greater than or equal to 70 years) who underwent curative-intent resection at ten Chinese hospitals from 2012 to 2021. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (with frailty defined as a Clinical Frailty Scale score greater than or equal to 5). The primary outcomes were overall survival and recurrence-free survival; secondary outcomes encompassed postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality, and 90-day mortality. The outcomes between patients with and without preoperative frailty were compared.

Results: Of the 488 elderly patients, 148 (30.3%) were considered frail. Frail patients experienced significantly higher 30-day morbidity (68.9% (102 of 148) versus 43.2% (147 of 340)), 30-day mortality (4.1% (6 of 148) versus 0.6% (2 of 340)), and 90-day mortality (6.1% (9 of 148) versus 0.9% (3 of 340)) compared with non-frail patients (all P < 0.010). During a median follow-up of 37.7 (interquartile range 20.4-57.8) months, frail patients demonstrated significantly worse median overall survival (41.6 (95% c.i. 32.0 to 51.2) versus 69.7 (95% c.i. 55.6 to 83.8) months) and recurrence-free survival (27.6 (95% c.i. 23.1 to 32.1) versus 42.7 (95% c.i. 34.6 to 50.8) months) compared with non-frail patients (both P < 0.010). Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed frailty as an independent risk factor for decreased overall survival (HR 1.61; P = 0.001) and decreased recurrence-free survival (HR 1.32; P = 0.028).

Conclusion: Frailty is significantly associated with adverse short-term and long-term outcomes after resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. The findings suggest that frailty assessment should be incorporated into perioperative and postoperative evaluation for elderly patients undergoing hepatocellular carcinoma resection.

Background: Patients with painful chronic pancreatitis combined with a dilated main pancreatic duct and a normal size pancreatic head are treated according to guidelines by lateral pancreaticojejunostomy (LPJ). This systematic review compared outcomes of minimally invasive LPJ and open LPJ.

Methods: From 1 January 2000 until 13 November 2023, series reporting on minimally invasive LPJ and open LPJ in patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis were included. This study was structured in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was intraoperative and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included long-term clinical outcomes.

Results: Overall, 19 retrospective studies were included. Morbidity rate ranged from 0% to 57% after minimally invasive LPJ versus 4% to 68% after open LPJ (median: 25, i.q.r.: 23). Length of hospital stay ranged from 5 to 7 days after minimally invasive LPJ and from 6 to 16 days after open LPJ. The rate of pain relief ranged from 62% to 91% after open LPJ (median: 78.5, i.q.r.: 23) and from 71% to 100% (median: 82.5, i.q.r.: 12.5) after minimally invasive LPJ respectively. New-onset endocrine insufficiency ranged from 21% to 22% in minimally invasive LPJ and 19% to 26% after open LPJ. New-onset exocrine insufficiency was shown in 11% to 27% in minimally invasive LPJ versus 8% to 26% after open LPJ. Weight gain ranged from 60% to 100% (median: 97, i.q.r.: 23) after minimally invasive LPJ.

Discussion: This systematic review suggested that minimally invasive LPJ can be performed safely in selected patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Phase 2 randomized trials should assess potential short-term benefits such as postoperative pain and length of hospital stay after minimally invasive LPJ.

Background: Postoperative death measured 30 days after surgery is a conventional quality metric, whereas intervals up to 90 days are increasingly used, although data-driven time windows have scarcely been investigated.

Methods: The Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry was used to identify all patients subjected resection for colorectal cancer between 2007 and 2020. All patients were followed up until 180 days after surgery. A join-point statistical hazard model was used to model a declining hazard to a transition point, followed by a stable death rate. This method was subsequently applied to describe postoperative deaths for the entire cohort and subgroups according to tumour location (colon and rectum).

Results: Some 56 096 patients electively operated on for colorectal cancer during the study interval were included, with a 30-day and 90-day fatality of 805 (1.43%) and 1458 (2.60%) patients respectively. The derived postoperative fatality window, after which the death rate transitioned to a stable rate, was 23.8 (95% c.i. 21.5 to 28.2) days after surgery. There was no significant difference in the time window between rectal cancer (22.9 days; 95% c.i. 15.1 to 28.4) and colon cancer (27.3 days; 95% c.i. 21.4 to 31.8) patients (P = 0.455). However, postoperative fatality time windows were extended in patients aged at least 80 years and with American Society of Anesthesiologists' grade III or IV.

Conclusion: The traditional postoperative time window of 30 days was confirmed to be an appropriate metric in elective colorectal cancer surgery when evaluated with a hazards-based statistical framework. Importantly, this time window is influenced by older age and advanced co-morbidity, which could prompt increased vigilance for these patient groups.

Background: Patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery are typically preoperatively assessed using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, which is also used for case-mix adjustment when comparing centre outcomes. Studies determining the inter-rater variability of the ASA classification within hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery are currently lacking.

Methods: An international survey was collected and a case-vignette study was performed (November 2022-April 2023) regarding the ASA classification in patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery among anaesthesiologists and surgeons from (inter)national societies. The survey consisted of 23 questions and eight case-vignettes. Primary analysis included descriptive statistics and the inter-rater variability was calculated using Light's Kappa.

Results: Overall, 1283 participants from 55 countries responded: 1073 (84%) anaesthesiologists and 210 (16%) surgeons. The ASA classification was commonly used, both clinically 1003/1283 (78%) and for research 728/762 (96%). The majority of respondents (n = 1019, 79%) declared that ASA score impacted their perioperative strategy. There inter-rater variability was fair-moderate (Kappa 0.26-0.42) in all case-vignettes. Inter-rater variability differed within and among geographic regions for each case. Over 80% (n = 1138) of respondents stated that they would take the underlying disease (for example cancer) into account, but this changed the preferred ASA score within the case-vignettes by only 1%. Type of surgery changed the preferred score in the case-vignettes (13% difference). The most common suggestions to improve the ASA classification were to clarify whether type of operation should be considered, create a more extensive definition, and provide more examples.

Conclusions: Inter-rater variability was present within the ASA classification of patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery, which may impact perioperative strategy and hamper research results. Additional guidance to classify patients according to ASA is urgently needed. Until then, more objective measurements should be considered for case-mix adjustment within research.

Background: Despite absence of level 1 evidence on the long-term oncological safety of non-operative management for rectal cancer (watch and wait), increased implementation has occurred globally over the past decades. In Sweden, a pan-national prospective non-randomized study was initiated in 2017 to assess its implementation.

Method: Patients with biopsy-proven rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy according to national guidelines in whom a clinical complete response was detected at reassessment were eligible for inclusion following informed consent. Only patients with an opportunistic watch-and-wait approach were included. Inclusion and follow-up, according to the study protocol, was managed at the participating study centres. The primary outcome measure of the study is 3-year disease-free survival. Here, the secondary short-term outcomes local regrowth rate, distant metastasis rate and outcomes after surgery for regrowth, at 6 months follow-up, are reported.

Results: Between January 2017 and February 2023, 211 patients with a clinical complete response were included in the study. Thirty-three (16%) patients developed suspicious regrowth within 6 months of inclusion. Thirty-two of 33 patients had abdominal resectional surgery for regrowth. The curative intention rate was 94% for patients with regrowth. Three patients (1.4%) developed distant metastases within 6 months of inclusion.

Conclusion: This Swedish national study on watch and wait reports regrowth rates after 6 months are in line with previous reports in the literature. Nearly all patients with early regrowth could be treated with salvage surgery and curative intent.