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.

Robot-assisted simultaneous bilateral radical inguinal with bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy is feasible, safe, and may result in decreased morbidity compared to conventional open lymphadenectomy.

Introduction:Transrectal rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, systematic biopsy has high false-negative rate and often misses anteriorly located tumors. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-TRUS fusion biopsy can potentially improve cancer detection by better visualization and targeting of cancer focus. We evaluated the role of fusion biopsy in detection of prostate cancer and the association of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score for predicting cancer risk and its aggression.Methods:Ninety-six consecutive men with suspected prostate cancer underwent MRI-TRUS fusion-targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions and standard 12 core biopsy from May 2014 to July 2015 in our institution. All patients underwent 3.0 T multiparametric MRI before biopsy. mp-MRI included T2W, DWI, DCE and MRS sequences to identify lesions suspicious for prostate cancer. Suspected lesions were scored according to PI-RADS scoring system. Comparison of cancer detection between standard 12 core biopsy and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy was done. Detection of prostate cancer was primary end point of this study.Results:Mean age was 64.4 years and median prostate-specific antigen was 8.6 ng/ml. Prostate cancer was detected in 57 patients (59.3%). Of these 57 patients, 8 patients (14%) were detected by standard 12 core biopsy only, 7 patients (12.3%) with MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy only, and 42 patients (73.7%) by both techniques. Of the 7 patients, detected with MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy alone, 6 patients (85.7%) had Gleason ≥7 disease. Prostate cancer was detected on either standard 12 core biopsy or MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in 0%, 42.8%, 74%, and 89.3% patients of suspicious lesions of highest PI-RADS score 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.Conclusions:MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy improves cancer detection rate when combined with standard 12 cores biopsy and detects more intermediate or high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason ≥7). With increasing PI-RADS score, there is an increase chance of detection of cancer as well as its aggressiveness.

Introduction:Pelvic lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy (RP) improves staging and may provide a therapeutic benefit. However, there is no clear consensus on the selection criteria for subjecting patients to this additional procedure. With a growing adoption of robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in India, it has become imperative to study the incidence and predictive factors for lymph node involvement in our patients.Materials and Methods:From February 2010 to February 2014, 452 RARP procedures were performed at our institution. A total of 100 consecutive patients from July 2011 to August 2012 were additionally subjected to a robotic extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (EPLND). Lymph node positivity rates and lymph node density were analyzed on the basis of preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, clinical stage, D’Amico risk category and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Multivariate analysis was performed to ascertain factors associated with lymph node positivity in our cohort.Results:The mean age of the patients was 65.5 (47–77) years and the body mass index was 26.3 (16.3–38.7) kg/m2. The mean console time for EPLND was 45 (32–68) min. A median of 17 (two to 40) lymph nodes were retrieved. Seventeen patients (17%) had positive lymph nodes (median of 1, range 1–6). Median lymph node density in these patients was 10%. When stratified by PSA, Gleason score, clinical stage, D’Amico risk category and features of locally advanced disease on MRI, a trend towards increasing incidence of lymph node positivity was observed, with an increase in adverse factors. However, on multivariate analysis, clinical stage > T2a was the only significant factor impacting lymph node positivity in our cohort.Conclusions:A significant proportion of men undergoing RARP in India have positive lymph nodes on EPLND. While other variables may also have a potential impact, a higher clinical stage predisposes to an increased incidence of lymph node metastases.

The PAD technique has several practical advantages with a shorter operative time compared with other historical series of laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP). It combines the ease of nondismembered LP with the excellent outcome of dismembered techniques.