Analysis of Patterns of Compliance with Accreditation Standards of National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We identified commonly deficient standards across rectal cancer programs that underwent accreditation review by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer to evaluate for patterns of noncompliance. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of the internal database of the American College of Surgeons, programs that underwent accreditation review from 2018 to 2020 were evaluated. The occurrence and frequency of noncompliance with the standards, using the 2017 standards manual, were evaluated. Programs were further stratified based on the year of review, annual rectal cancer volume, and Commission on Cancer classification. RESULTS: A total of 25 programs with annual rectal cancer volume from 14 to more than 200 cases per year underwent accreditation review. Only 2 programs achieved 100% compliance with all standards. Compliance with standards ranged from 48% to 100%. The 2 standards with the lowest level of compliance included standard 2.5 and standard 2.11 that require all patients with rectal cancer to be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting before the initiation of definitive treatment and within 4 weeks after definitive surgical therapy, respectively. Patterns of noncompliance persisted when programs were stratified on the basis oof the year of survey, annual rectal cancer volume, and Commission on Cancer classification. The corrective action process allowed all programs to ultimately become successfully accredited. CONCLUSION: During this initial phase of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer accreditation, the majority of programs undergoing review did not achieve 100% compliance and went through a corrective action process. Although the minimal multidisciplinary team meeting attendance requirements were simplified in the 2021 revised standards, noncompliance related to presentation of all patients at the multidisciplinary team meeting before and after definitive treatment highlights the need for programs seeking accreditation to implement optimized and standardized workflows to achieve compliance.

Review and update: robotic transanal surgery (RTAS).

As the field of surgery advances, new approaches have allowed surgeons additional flexibility to perform further interventions with minimal or no external incisions. For many years, single site access (SSA) has been used for transanal procedures, and platforms allowing modified endoscopic approaches have been available. These platforms have limitations related to access, visualization, dexterity, camera control, and instrumentation. Recently, surgical robotics companies have developed and introduced new technologies and platforms, which may help address some of these limitations. Comprehensive internet, open access, and medical and industry conference reviews of robotic surgery platforms and technology available for use in SSA surgery were conducted and 30 articles were found using keywords "robotic surgery, transanal, single site, robotic transanal surgery". A PubMed, Medline, Journals @OVID and open access search for data related to these platforms and technologies was also performed yielding 11 articles. Abstracts were reviewed for those written in the English language, leaving 40 articles which were then filtered for those pertaining to robotic surgery, transanal. 58 abstracts were found, duplicates were eliminated, and the remaining 35 articles were read in their entirety by two reviewers. Several new and existing platforms are identified for use in SSA surgery for transanal surgery as well as abdominal and transoral surgery. These are reviewed, including brand, features, approved and suggested uses, and potential limitations. New robotic technologies serve to enhance the ability of surgeons to perform SSA surgery. This next generation of robotic surgery technology overcomes some of the limitations of preceding endoscopic SSA surgery technology and will enhance the advancement of robotic transanal surgery, but outcomes and performance data are still limited.

Safety and efficacy of synchronous robotic surgery for colorectal cancer with liver metastases.

Timing of resection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases varies based on patient characteristics and center protocols. Concerns of increased morbidity and mortality (M&M) related to anesthetic time and blood loss have limited widespread adaptation of synchronous colorectal and liver resections. Furthermore, technical challenges have made minimally invasive synchronous resections less common. We present our series of synchronous robotic surgery for CRC with liver metastases. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients with stage IV CRC with liver metastases treated at a tertiary center from February 2013 to June 2014. Patients who underwent synchronous robotic surgery for CRC with liver metastasis(es) were included and selected by a multidisciplinary cancer committee. Data included patient demographics, disease stage, OR time, EBL, and complications. All resections were performed robotically by the same well-experienced surgeons. A radiologist was present for intraoperative ultrasound. Liver treatment was performed first in consideration of intraoperative bleeding risk. Sixty-six patients with Stage IV CRC were seen at the tertiary center during the study period. Six patients met inclusion criteria (2 male, 4 female). Mean age was 59.3 years and mean BMI was 23.46. Mean of 2.25 liver segments were resected and mean of 1.75 liver segments were ablated. Four patients underwent metastatectomy; three with concurrent microwave ablation. One patient had ablation without resection and another had no identifiable lesion on ultrasound. The colonic resections included 3 low anterior resections, 2 abdominal perineal resections (APR), and 1 right hemicolectomy. Mean operative time was 401 min (349-506 min) with mean EBL of 316 mL (150-1000 mL). No conversions to an open approach occurred. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4.5 days (3-10 days). Complications included delayed wound healing after an APR and a delayed rectal anastomotic failure after ileostomy reversal. There was no 30-day mortality. At a mean follow-up of 19 months, one death occurred at 26 months and the remaining patients had documented metastatic disease. Synchronous resection for metastatic CRC carries risks. We report our series of synchronous robotic surgery for CRC with liver metastases. The robotic approach contributed to low blood loss, appropriate LOS, and no 30-day mortality. Morbidity experienced was consistent with the procedures and not related to the robotic technique. This series supports the potential benefits of synchronous resection from a technical standpoint. Further data are required to determine treatment and survival benefits. Limitations include small number and retrospective review of data.

Incision and loop drainage: a minimally invasive technique for subcutaneous abscess management in children.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate outcomes after a minimally invasive approach to pediatric subcutaneous abscess management as a replacement for wide exposure, debridement, and repetitive packing. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of all children who underwent incision and loop drainage for subcutaneous abscesses between January 2002 and October 2007 at our institution. TECHNIQUE: Two mini incisions, 4-5 mm each, were made on the abscess, as far apart as possible. Abscess was probed, and pus was drained. Abscess was irrigated with normal saline; a loop drain was passed through one incision, brought out through the other, and tied to itself. An absorbent dressing was applied over the loop and changed regularly. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients underwent drainage procedures as described; 5 patients had multiple abscesses. Mean values (range) are as follows: age, 4.25 years (19 days to 20.5 years); duration of symptoms, 7.8 days (1-42 days); length of hospital stay, 3 days (1-39 days); duration of procedure, 10.8 minutes (4-43 minutes); drain duration, 10.4 days (3-24 days); and number of postoperative visits, 1.8 (1-17). Bacterial culture data were available for 101 patients. Of these, 50% had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 26% had methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, and 9% streptococcal species. Of the 115 patients, 5 had pilonidal abscesses, 1 required reoperation for persistent drainage, and 1 had a planned staged excision. Of the remaining 110 patients, 6 (5.5%) required reoperation-4 with loop drains and 2 with incision and packing with complete healing. CONCLUSION: The use of loop drains proved safe and effective in the treatment of subcutaneous abscesses in children. Eliminating the need for repetitive and cumbersome wound packing simplifies postoperative wound care. Furthermore, there is an expected cost savings with this technique given the decreased need for wound care materials and professional postoperative home health services. We recommend this minimally invasive technique as the treatment of choice for subcutaneous abscesses in children and consider it the standard of care in our facility.

Postcholecystectomy biliary symptoms.

Patients with postcholecystectomy biliary symptoms beyond their original surgery present a diagnostic challenge for the practicing surgeon. The diagnostic algorithm is the same as in an initial episode and should rule out nonbiliary causes of right upper quadrant pain. If biliary causes are suspected, the most common diagnosis is retained common bile duct stones.(1) Among the less common diagnoses, congenital anomalies of the biliary system must also be considered. Anatomical variants are well described in medical literature and must be anticipated by the general surgeon. Here the course and imaging of 2 different patients with postcholecystectomy biliary symptoms are presented followed by a discussion of several etiologies that could cause these symptoms. These cases are presented to remind the general surgeon of the wide variety of presentations possible with biliary disease. In these situations, knowledge of a patient's surgical history can lead to confusion when attempting to make an accurate diagnosis. A prepared surgeon can help shed light on a case complicated by inconsistencies between imaging studies and patient history.