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.

ERAS protocol and indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) represent the new surgical revolution minimizing complications and shortening recovery time in colorectal surgery. As of today, no studies have been published in the literature evaluating the impact of the ICG-FA in the ERAS protocol for the patients suitable for colorectal surgery. The aim of our study was to assess whether the systematic evaluation of intestinal perfusion by ICG-FA could improve patients outcomes when managed with ERAS perioperative protocol, thus reducing surgical complication rate. This is a retrospective case-control study. From March 2014 to April 2017, 182 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery for benign and malignant diseases. All the patients were enrolled in ERAS protocol. Two groups were created: Group A comprehended 107 patients managed within the ERAS pathway only and Group B comprehended 75 patients managed as well as with ERAS pathway plus the intraoperative assessment of intestinal perfusion with ICG-FA. Two board-certified laparoscopic colorectal surgeons jointly performed all procedures. Six (5.6%) clinically relevant anastomotic leakages (AL) occurred in Group A, while there was none in Group B, demonstrating that ICG-FA integrated in the ERAS protocol can lead to a statistically significant reduction of the AL. Mean operative time between the two groups was not statistically significant. In five cases (6.6%), the demarcation line set by the fluorescence made the surgeon change the resection line previously marked. The prevalence of all other complications did not differ statistically between the two groups. Our study confirms that combination between ICG and ERAS protocol is feasible and safe and reduces the anastomotic leakage, possibly leading to consider ICG-FA as a new ERAS item.

No abstract

Background The aim of this study was to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced ERAS program application in colorectal surgery across hospitals in the Lazio region (central district in Italy) participating in the “Lazio Network” project. Methods A multi-institutional database was constructed. All patients included in this study underwent elective colorectal surgery for both malignant and benign disease between January 2019 and December 2020. Emergency procedures were excluded. The population was divided into 2 groups: a pre-COVID-19 group (PG) of patients operated on between February and December 2019 and a COVID-19 group (CG) of patients operated on between February and December 2020, during the first 2 waves of the pandemic in Italy. Results The groups included 622 patients in the PG and 615 in the CG treated in 8 hospitals of the network. The mean number of items applied was higher in the PG (65.6% vs. 56.6%, p < 0.001) in terms of preoperative items (64.2% vs. 50.7%, p < 0.001), intraoperative items (65.0% vs. 53.3%, p < 0.001), and postoperative items (68.8% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.001). Postoperative recovery was faster in the PG, with a shorter time to first flatus, first stool, autonomous mobilization and discharge (6.82 days vs. 7.43 days, p = 0.021). Postoperative complications, mortality and reoperations were similar among the groups. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the application of ERAS in the centers of the “Lazio Network” study group, with a reduction in adherence to the ERAS protocol in terms of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative items. In addition, in the CG, the patients had worse postoperative outcomes with respect to recovery and discharge. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-022-06694-8.

Background Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of major gastrointestinal surgery with an impact on short- and long-term survival. No validated system for risk stratification exists for this patient group. This study aimed to validate externally a prognostic model for AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery in two multicentre cohort studies. Methods The Outcomes After Kidney injury in Surgery (OAKS) prognostic model was developed to predict risk of AKI in the 7 days after surgery using six routine datapoints (age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker). Validation was performed within two independent cohorts: a prospective multicentre, international study (‘IMAGINE’) of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery (2018); and a retrospective regional cohort study (‘Tayside’) in major abdominal surgery (2011–2015). Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict risk of AKI, with multiple imputation used to account for data missing at random. Prognostic accuracy was assessed for patients at high risk (greater than 20 per cent) of postoperative AKI. Results In the validation cohorts, 12.9 per cent of patients (661 of 5106) in IMAGINE and 14.7 per cent (106 of 719 patients) in Tayside developed 7-day postoperative AKI. Using the OAKS model, 558 patients (9.6 per cent) were classified as high risk. Less than 10 per cent of patients classified as low-risk developed AKI in either cohort (negative predictive value greater than 0.9). Upon external validation, the OAKS model retained an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of range 0.655–0.681 (Tayside 95 per cent c.i. 0.596 to 0.714; IMAGINE 95 per cent c.i. 0.659 to 0.703), sensitivity values range 0.323–0.352 (IMAGINE 95 per cent c.i. 0.281 to 0.368; Tayside 95 per cent c.i. 0.253 to 0.461), and specificity range 0.881–0.890 (Tayside 95 per cent c.i. 0.853 to 0.905; IMAGINE 95 per cent c.i. 0.881 to 0.899). Conclusion The OAKS prognostic model can identify patients who are not at high risk of postoperative AKI after gastrointestinal surgery with high specificity. Presented to Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) International Conference 2018 (Edinburgh, UK), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) International Conference 2018 (Nice, France), SARS (Society of Academic and Research Surgery) 2020 (Virtual, UK).