P338: summarizing measures of proficiency in transanal total mesorectal excision-a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is technically challenging even for experienced colorectal surgeons and there may be a higher risk of complications during learning. Determining when a surgeon is ready to safely perform this technique independently remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically summarize the available evidence regarding measures of proficiency in TaTME for rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Epub records, Biosis previews, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All English and French language studies published between 2010 and 2018 that described proficiency metrics for TaTME were included. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and therefore qualitative synthesis was performed. The primary outcomes were the methodology and measures used to define proficiency, and the number of cases needed to achieve proficiency. RESULTS: Of 994 citations, five studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, only two used objective measures to define proficiency. These studies evaluated patient outcomes and defined proficiency through cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the primary outcome(s): post-operative complications and TME quality. Two studies reported expert consensus to establish recommendations using a combination of electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons and consensus conferences with TaTME experts from 7 to 8 different countries. One study defined the learning phase as 16 months of TaTME practice, or the first 27 cases. Stated case volumes needed to achieve proficiency varied widely. Studies using objective outcome measures reported threshold volumes of 40 and 51 cases, respectively, while expert consensus studies recommended needing 6-30 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists regarding the determination of proficiency benchmarks for TaTME. Expert consensus documents recommend lower case numbers to obtain proficiency than those defined by objective measures, suggesting greater experience may be required than generally thought.

Validity of the I-FEED score for postoperative gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) is common after gastrointestinal surgery and is associated with significant morbidity and costs. However, POI is poorly defined. The I-FEED score is a novel outcome measure for POI, developed by expert consensus. It contains five elements (intake, response to nausea treatment, emesis, exam, and duration, each scored with 0, 1, or 3 points) and classifies patients into normal, postoperative gastrointestinal intolerance (POGI), and postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD). However, it has not yet been validated in a clinical context. The objective was to provide validity evidence for the I-FEED score to measure the construct of POI in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. METHODS: Data previously collected from a clinical trial investigating the impact of different perioperative fluid management strategies on primary POI in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy (2013-2015) were analyzed. Patients were managed by a longstanding Enhanced Recovery program (expected length of stay (LOS): 3 days). Daily I-FEED scores were generated (normal 0-2, POGI 3-5, POGD 6+ points) up to hospital discharge or postoperative day 7. Validity was assessed by testing the hypotheses that I-FEED score was higher (1) in patients with longer time to GI3 (tolerating diet + flatus/bowel movement), (2) with longer LOS (> 3 days vs shorter), (3) in patients with complications vs without, (4) in patients with poorer recovery (measured by Quality of Recovery-9 questionnaire). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included for analysis (mean age 61.7 years (SD 15.2), 57% male, 71% malignancy, and 39.1% rectal resection). Median LOS was 4 days [IQR3-5], and 32% experienced postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Overall, 48% of patients were categorized as normal, 22% POGI, and 30% POGD. The data supported all 4 hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes preliminary validity evidence for the I-FEED score as a measure for POI after colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopy in Acute Care Surgery: Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer.

INTRODUCTION: The use of laparoscopic management as a first choice for the treatment of duodenal perforation is gaining ground but is not routine in many centers. In this report, we aim to report our experience with laparoscopy as the first approach for the repair of duodenal perforation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients during our initial experience with the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of duodenal perforation between 2009 and 2013. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients underwent management of duodenal perforation. Laparoscopy was attempted initially in 76 patients (76%) and completed in 64 patients (64%). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (mean 2.6) than in the open group (mean 3.1) (p = 0.008). Complications developed in 14 patients (20%). There was a tendency towards fewer admissions to intensive care, less acute kidney injuries, and less acute respiratory distress syndrome in the laparoscopic group. In patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, the chances of uneventful recovery were 4.3 times higher than in those patients who underwent open surgery (95% CI 1.3-13.5, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and can be utilized as a routine approach for the treatment of this pathology.

The aftermath of the Kuwait mosque bombing: A retrospective cohort analysis and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: The occurrence of terrorist attacks are still recurrent incidents plaguing the middle east region. However, Kuwait has been mostly spared from these attacks over the years. Therefore, when the bombing of the mosque in 2015 happened, it shocked a country that is not prepared for such disasters. Our aim was to present the incident that occurred on that day and on the lessons learned from it. METHODS: A collaborative effort among the hospitals in Kuwait examined the details and outcomes of the initial response to the bombing. The centers reported their retrospective data, which was analyzed to determine prehospital and intra-hospital management and assess the medical response to the terrorist bombing. RESULTS: A total of 239 victims were involved in the explosion, of which 18 were pronounced dead on site. 147 (67%) were transferred to the hospital for care 22 min after the explosion occurred. The injuries seen were not localized to one region of the body, but afflicted various organ systems. 86 patients were admitted to the hospital, for which five required urgent surgical intervention. Total mortality (on-site and in-hospital) reported after the bombing was 11.2%. CONCLUSION: Rapid response after a mass casualty is of utmost importance for the adequate management of the victims of such tragedies, and could ensure excellent outcomes if performed precisely. However, many lessons can be learned from this shocking event, especially that it exposed the gaps currently present in our disaster plan systems and the importance of looking into addressing them.

Approach to Poor Weight Loss After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Re-sleeve Vs. Gastric Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is increasing worldwide; however, long-term follow-up results included insufficient weight loss and weight regain. This study aims at assessing the outcomes of converting LSG to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic re-sleeve gastrectomy (LRSG). METHODS: A total of 1300 patients underwent LSG from 2009 to 2012, of which 12 patients underwent LRYGB and 24 patients underwent LRSG in Al-Amiri Hospital alone. Data included length of stay, percentage excessive weight loss (EWL%), and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients underwent conversion from LSG to LRSG, and 12 patients underwent conversion from LSG to LRYGB due to insufficient weight loss and weight regain. Eighty-five percent were females. The mean weight and BMI prior to LSG for the LRYGB and LRSG patients were 136.5 kg and 52, and 134 kg and 50, respectively. The EWL% after the initial LSG was 37.9 and 43 %, for LRYGB and LRSG, respectively. There were no complications recorded. Results of conversion of LSG to LRYGB involved a mean EWL% 61.3 % after 1 year (p value 0.009). Results of LRSG involved a mean EWL% of 57 % over interval of 1 year (p value 0.05). Comparison of the EWL% of LRYGB and LRSG for failed primary LSG was not significant (p value 0.097). CONCLUSION: Following our algorithm, revising an LSG with an LRSG or LRYGB for poor weight loss is feasible with good outcomes. Larger and longer follow-up studies are needed to verify our results.