Economic impact of outpatient follow-up using telemedicine vs in-person visits for patients in general surgery: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Innovation in internet connectivity and the Covid 19 pandemic have caused a dramatic change in the management of patients in the medical field, boosting the use of telemedicine. A comparison of clinical outcomes and satisfaction between conventional face-to-face and telemedicine follow-up in general surgery, an economic evaluation is mandatory. The aim of the present study was to compare the differences in economic costs between these two outpatient approaches in a designed randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: A RCT was conducted enrolling 200 patients to compare conventional in-person vs. digital health follow-up using telemedicine in the outpatient clinics in patients of General Surgery Department after their planned discharge. After a demonstration that no differences were found in clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, we analyzed the medical costs, including staff wages, initial investment, patent's transportation and impact on social costs. RESULTS: After an initial investment of 7527.53€, the costs for the Medical institution of in-person conventional follow-up were higher (8180.4€) than those using telemedicine (4630.06€). In relation to social costs, loss of productivity was also increased in the conventional follow-up. CONCLUSION: The use of digital Health telemedicine is a cost-effective approach compared to conventional face-to-face follow-up in patients of General Surgery after hospital discharge.

Critical appraisal of surgical margins according to KRAS status in liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: Should surgical strategy be influenced by tumor biology?

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation is a negative prognostic factor for colorectal liver metastases. Several studies have investigated the resection margins according to KRAS status, with conflicting results. The aim of the study was to assess the oncologic outcomes of R0 and R1 resections for colorectal liver metastases according to KRAS status. METHODS: All patients who underwent resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2010 and 2015 with available KRAS status were enrolled in this multicentric international cohort study. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the outcomes of R0 and R1 colorectal liver metastases resections according to KRAS status: wild type versus mutated. The primary outcomes were overall survival and disease-free survival. RESULTS: The analysis included 593 patients. KRAS mutation was associated with shorter overall survival (40 vs 60 months; P = .0012) and disease-free survival (15 vs 21 months; P = .003). In KRAS-mutated tumors, the resection margin did not influence oncologic outcomes. In multivariable analysis, the only predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival was primary tumor location (P = .03 and P = .03, respectively). In KRAS wild-type tumors, R0 resection was associated with prolonged overall survival (74 vs 45 months, P < .001) and disease-free survival (30 vs 17 months, P < .001). The multivariable model confirmed that R0 resection margin was associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.03) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.42; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: KRAS-mutated colorectal liver metastases showed more aggressive tumor biology with inferior overall survival and disease-free survival after liver resection. Although R0 resection was not associated with improved oncologic outcomes in the KRAS-mutated tumors group, it seems to be of paramount importance for achieving prolonged long-term survival in KRAS wild-type tumors.

Long-Term Outcomes of Perioperative Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: An International Multicentre Propensity-Score Matched Analysis with Stratification by Contemporary Risk-Scoring.

BACKGROUND: There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx). METHODS: International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied. RESULTS: Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420-0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403-0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients. CONCLUSIONS: When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations.

Liver resection in elderly patients with extensive CRLM: Are we offering an adequate treatment? A propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the management of elderly patients with extensive colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are scarce and conflicting. This study assesses differences in management and long-term oncological outcomes between older and younger patients with CRLM and a high Tumour Burden Score (TBS). METHODS: International multicentre retrospective study on patients with CRLM and a category 3 TBS, submitted to liver resection. Patients were divided into two groups according to their age (younger and older than 75) and were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and multivariable regression models. Differences in management and oncological outcomes including recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 386 patients, median follow-up was 48 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a higher ASA score (p = 0.035), less synchronous CRLM (47% vs 68%, p = 0.003), a lower median number of lesions (1 vs 3, p = 0.004) and less perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) (66% vs 88%, p < 0.001) in the elderly group. Despite the absence of CTx being an independent predictor of decreased RFS and OS (HR 0.760, p = 0.044 and HR 0.719, p = 0.049, respectively), the elderly group still received less CTx (OR 0.317, p = 0.001) than the younger group. After PSM (n = 100 patients), the two groups were comparable, however, CTx administration was still significantly lower in the elderly group. CONCLUSION: Liver resection should be considered in patients aged 75 and older, even if they present with extensive liver disease. Despite CTx being associated with improved oncological outcomes, a large percentage of elderly patients with CRLM are undertreated.

THERE ARE NO ADVANTAGES BETWEEN LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN LIVER RESECTIONS WITHIN AN ENHANCED RECOVERY PROGRAM (ERAS).

BACKGROUND: The use of a successful Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal surgery favored its application in other organs, and hepatic resections were not excluded from this tendency. Some authors suggest that the laparoscopic approach is a central element to obtain better results. AIM: To compare the laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resections within an ERAS to evaluate if there are any differences between them. METHODS: In a descriptive study 80 hepatic resections that were divided into two groups, regarding to whether they were submitted to laparoscopy or open surgery. Demographic data, those referring to the hepatectomy and the ERAS was analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-seven resections were carried out in open surgery and the rest laparoscopically; in the first group there was only one conversion to open surgery. Of the total, 17 resections were major hepatectomies and in 18 simultaneous resections. There were no differences between procedures regarding hospital stay and number of complications. There was a greater adherence to the ERAS (p=0.046) and a faster ambulation (p=0.001) in the open surgery. CONCLUSION: The procedure, whether open or laparoscopically done in hepatic resections, does not seem to show differences in an ERAS evaluation.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable colorectal liver metastases: an international multicentre propensity score matched analysis on long-term outcomes according to established prognostic risk scores.

BACKGROUND: There is still uncertainty regarding the role of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), especially in those with a low-risk of recurrence. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010-2015. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received perioperative CTx or not and were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Then, they were stratified according to prognostic risk scores, including: Clinical Risk Score (CRS), Tumour Burden Score (TBS) and Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score. RESULTS: The study included 967 patients with a median follow-up of 68 months. After PSM analysis, patients with perioperative CTx presented prolonged overall survival (OS) in comparison with the surgery alone group (82.8 vs 52.5 months, p = 0.017). On multivariable analysis perioperative CTx was an independent predictor of increased OS (HR 0.705, 95%CI 0.705-0.516, p = 0.029). The benefits of perioperative CTx on survival were confirmed in patients with CRS and TBS scores ≤2 (p = 0.022 and p = 0.020, respectively) and in patients with a GAME score ≤1 (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Perioperative CTx demonstrated an increase in OS in patients with CRLM. Patients with a low-risk of recurrence seem to benefit from systemic treatment.

There are no advantages between laparoscopic and open liver resections within an enhanced recovery program (eras) / Não há vantagens entre as ressecções hepáticas laparoscópicas e abertas dentro de um programa de recuperação avançada (eras/acerto)

ABSTRACT Background: The use of a successful Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal surgery favored its application in other organs, and hepatic resections were not excluded from this tendency. Some authors suggest that the laparoscopic approach is a central element to obtain better results. Aim: To compare the laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resections within an ERAS to evaluate if there are any differences between them. Methods: In a descriptive study 80 hepatic resections that were divided into two groups, regarding to whether they were submitted to laparoscopy or open surgery. Demographic data, those referring to the hepatectomy and the ERAS was analyzed. Results: Forty-seven resections were carried out in open surgery and the rest laparoscopically; in the first group there was only one conversion to open surgery. Of the total, 17 resections were major hepatectomies and in 18 simultaneous resections. There were no differences between procedures regarding hospital stay and number of complications. There was a greater adherence to the ERAS (p=0.046) and a faster ambulation (p=0.001) in the open surgery. Conclusion: The procedure, whether open or laparoscopically done in hepatic resections, does not seem to show differences in an ERAS evaluation.

RESUMO Racional: O uso do protocolo Recuperação Otimizada Após Cirurgia (ERAS/ACERTO) com sucesso na cirurgia colorretal favoreceu a aplicação dele em outros órgãos; as ressecções hepáticas não foram excluídas dessa tendência. Alguns autores sugerem que a abordagem laparoscópica é elemento central para a obtenção de melhores resultados. Objetivo: Comparar as ressecções hepáticas laparoscópicas e abertas dentro de um ACERTO para avaliar se existem diferenças entre as duas técnicas. Métodos: Estudo descritivo comparando 80 ressecções hepáticas divididas em dois grupos, as realizadas por laparoscopia e aquelas por laparotomia. Foram analisados dados demográficos, referentes à hepatectomia e ao ACERTO. Resultados: Foram realizadas 47 ressecções por laparotomia e o restante por laparoscopia; houve apenas uma conversão para laparotomia no grupo da laparoscopia. Do total, 17 ressecções foram hepatectomias maiores e em 18 ressecções simultâneas. Não houve diferenças entre os procedimentos quanto ao tempo de internação e número de complicações. Houve maior adesão ao ACERTO (p=0,046) e deambulação mais rápida (p=0,001) na operação aberta. Conclusão: O procedimento, seja laparotômico ou laparoscópico nas ressecções hepáticas, não parece mostrar diferenças em uma avaliação ERAS/ACERTO.

Telemedicine to follow patients in a general surgery department. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is becoming more popular in many medical specialties but few studies have been conducted in General Surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of its introduction in this specialty. METHODS: A prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in 200 patients to compare conventional vs telemedicine follow-up in the outpatient clinics. The primary outcome was the feasibility of telemedicine follow-up and the secondary outcomes were its clinical impact and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients were enrolled between March 2017 and April 2018 and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups' characteristics. The primary outcome was achieved in 90% of the conventional follow-up group and in 74% of the telemedicine group (P = 0.003). No differences were found in clinical outcomes (P = 0.832) or patient satisfaction (P = 0.099). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is a good complementary service to facilitate follow-up management in selected patients from a General Surgery department.