Background Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. Methods Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. Results A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members’ online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. Conclusion This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-06882-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Although self‐expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short‐term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long‐term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods Through a national collaborative research project, long‐term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching. Results Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS‐related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three‐year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease‐free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3‐year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease‐free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively. Conclusion Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS‐related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision‐making for individual patients.

ImportanceColorectal surgery is associated with substantial morbidity rates and a lowered functional capacity. Optimization of the patient’s condition in the weeks prior to surgery may attenuate these unfavorable sequelae.ObjectiveTo determine whether multimodal prehabilitation before colorectal cancer surgery can reduce postoperative complications and enhance functional recovery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe PREHAB randomized clinical trial was an international, multicenter trial conducted in teaching hospitals with implemented enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Adult patients with nonmetastasized colorectal cancer were assessed for eligibility and randomized to either prehabilitation or standard care. Both arms received standard perioperative care. Patients were enrolled from June 2017 to December 2020, and follow-up was completed in December 2021. However, this trial was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.InterventionsThe 4-week in-hospital supervised multimodal prehabilitation program consisted of a high-intensity exercise program 3 times per week, a nutritional intervention, psychological support, and a smoking cessation program when needed.Main Outcomes and MeasuresComprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score, number of patients with CCI score more than 20, and improved walking capacity expressed as the 6-minute walking distance 4 weeks postoperatively.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat population of 251 participants (median [IQR] age, 69 [60-76] years; 138 [55%] male), 206 (82%) had tumors located in the colon and 234 (93%) underwent laparoscopic- or robotic-assisted surgery. The number of severe complications (CCI score &amp;gt;20) was significantly lower favoring prehabilitation compared with standard care (21 of 123 [17.1%] vs 38 of 128 [29.7%]; odds ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; P = .02). Participants in prehabilitation encountered fewer medical complications (eg, respiratory) compared with participants receiving standard care (19 of 123 [15.4%] vs 35 of 128 [27.3%]; odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.89]; P = .02). Four weeks after surgery, 6-minute walking distance did not differ significantly between groups when compared with baseline (mean difference prehabilitation vs standard care 15.6 m [95% CI, −1.4 to 32.6]; P = .07). Secondary parameters of functional capacity in the postoperative period generally favored prehabilitation compared with standard care.Conclusions and RelevanceThis PREHAB trial demonstrates the benefit of a multimodal prehabilitation program before colorectal cancer surgery as reflected by fewer severe and medical complications postoperatively and an optimized postoperative recovery compared with standard care.Trial Registrationtrialregister.nl Identifier: NTR5947

Background Considering the relation between preoperative functional capacity and postoperative complications, enhancing patients’ functional capacity before surgery with a prehabilitation program may facilitate faster recovery and improve quality of life. However, time before surgery is short, mandating a multimodal and high-intensity training approach. This study investigated feasibility and safety of a prehabilitation program for colorectal cancer. Methods Multimodal prehabilitation was offered to patients eligible for participation and they were assigned to an intervention or control group by program availability. The prehabilitation program consisted of the following four interventions: in-hospital high-intensity endurance and strength training, high-protein nutrition and supplements, smoking cessation, and psychological support. Program attendance, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and functional capacity were determined. Results Fifty patients participated in this study (prehabilitation 20, control 30). Program evaluation revealed a high (90%) attendance rate and high level of patient satisfaction. No adverse events occurred. Endurance and/or strength were improved. Eighty-six percent of patients with prehabilitation recovered to their baseline functional capacity 4 weeks postoperatively, 40% in the control group (P < 0.01). Conclusions Multimodal prehabilitation including high-intensity training for colorectal cancer patients is feasible, safe, and effective. A randomized controlled trial (NTR5947) was initiated to determine whether prehabilitation may lower morbidity and mortality rates in colorectal surgery.

No abstract

Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

Background Timely treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator in oncological care. However, patients with CRC might benefit more from preoperative optimization rather than rapid treatment initiation. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the definition of the CRC treatment interval, (2) to study international recommendations regarding this interval and (3) to study whether length of the interval is associated with outcome. Methods We performed a systematic search of the literature in June 2020 through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, complemented with a web search and a survey among colorectal surgeons worldwide. Full‐text papers including subjects with CRC and a description of the treatment interval were included. Results Definition of the treatment interval varies widely in published studies, especially due to different starting points of the interval. Date of diagnosis is often used as start of the interval, determined with date of pathological confirmation. The end of the interval is rather consistently determined with date of initiation of any primary treatment. Recommendations on the timeline of the treatment interval range between and within countries from two weeks between decision to treat and surgery, to treatment within seven weeks after pathological diagnosis. Finally, there is no decisive evidence that a longer treatment interval is associated with worse outcome. Conclusions The interval from diagnosis to treatment for CRC treatment could be used for prehabilitation to benefit patient recovery. It may be that this strategy is more beneficial than urgently proceeding with treatment.

Optimizing a patients’ condition before surgery to improve the postoperative outcome can be achieved by using prehabilitation; preoperative interventions focusing on modifiable risk factors to improve the physical, nutritional, and mental status of the patient. A multimodal, multidisciplinary approach induces a synergistic effect between the various interventions and affects the outcome postoperatively. While awaiting higher-quality evidence, the worldwide implementation of prehabilitation programs has started, resulting in a true revolution in perioperative care.