Gastroenterologist and surgeon perceptions of recommendations for optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms.

National consensus recommendations have recently been developed to standardize colorectal tumour localization and documentation during colonoscopy. In this qualitative semi-structured interview study, we identified and contrast the perceived barriers and facilitators to using these new recommendations according to gastroenterologists and surgeons in a large central Canadian city. Interviews were analyzed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) through directed content analysis. Solutions were categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework. Eleven gastroenterologists and ten surgeons participated. Both specialty groups felt that the new recommendations were clearly written, adequately addressed current care practice tensions, and offered a relative advantage versus existing practices. The new recommendations appeared appropriately complex, applicable to most participants, and could be trialed and adapted prior to full implementation. Major barriers included a lack of relevant external or internal organizational incentives, non-existing formal feedback processes, and a lack of individual familiarity with the evidence behind some recommendations. With application of the ERIC framework, common barriers could be addressed through accessing new funding, altering incentive structures, changing record systems, educational interventions, identifying champions, promoting adaptability, and employing audit/feedback processes. Future research is needed to test strategies for feasibility and effectiveness.

Impact of enhanced recovery pathways on patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports that enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) reduce length of stay and complications; however, these measures may not reflect the perspective of patients who are the main stakeholders in the recovery process. This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence regarding the impact of ERPs on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Five databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of ERPs on PROs after abdominal surgery. We focused on distinct periods of recovery: early (within 7 days postoperatively) and late (beyond 7 days). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2.0. Results were appraised descriptively as heterogeneity hindered meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Fifty-six RCTs were identified [colorectal (n = 18), hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) (n = 11), upper gastrointestinal (UGI) (n = 10), gynecological (n = 7), urological (n = 7), general surgery (n = 3)]. Most trials had 'some concerns' (n = 30) or 'high' (n = 25) risk of bias. In the early postoperative period, ERPs improved patient-reported general health (colorectal, HPB, UGI, urological; very low to low certainty), physical health (colorectal, gynecological; very low to low certainty), mental health (colorectal, gynecological; very low certainty), pain (all specialties; very low to moderate certainty), and fatigue (colorectal; low certainty). In the late postoperative period, ERPs improved general health (HPB, UGI, urological; very low certainty), physical health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low to low certainty), mental health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low certainty), social health (gynecological; very low certainty), pain (gynecological, urological; very low certainty), and fatigue (gynecological; very low certainty). CONCLUSION: This review supports that ERPs may have a positive impact on patient-reported postoperative health status (i.e., general, physical, mental, and social health) and symptom experience (i.e., pain and fatigue) after abdominal surgery; however, data were largely derived from low-quality trials. Although these findings contribute important knowledge to inform evidence-based ERP implementation, there remains a great need to improve PRO assessment in studies focused on postoperative recovery.

Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location.

S110-Opioid-free analgesia after outpatient general surgery: A qualitative study focused on the perspectives of patients and clinicians involved in a pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-free analgesia (OFA) may mitigate opioid-related harms after outpatient general surgery; however, the comparative effectiveness of this approach should be assessed in robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Undertaking an RCT on OFA raises important practical concerns, including surgeon and patient hesitation regarding pain management without opioids. We conducted a qualitative study to explore patients' and clinicians' perspectives and experiences with a pilot trial focused on OFA after outpatient general surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing outpatient abdominal and breast procedures were randomized to receive post-discharge opioid analgesia (OA) or OFA. Semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians involved in the trial were conducted to elicit personal perspectives and experiences. Purposive sampling for maximum variation was used to recruit participants with diverse characteristics. Transcribed interviews were assessed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten patients (5 abdominal, 5 breast) and 10 clinicians (6 surgeons, 2 anesthesiologists, 2 nurses) were interviewed. Five major themes emerged: readiness for trial engagement, pre-trial thoughts about the interventions, postoperative pain experiences, intervention acceptability, and trial refinement. Most patients were open to OFA. Clinicians expressed willingness to prescribe OFA, particularly after less invasive procedures and when using peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs). Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of pain control and side effects of non-opioid drugs (e.g., NSAID-induced bleeding, kidney injury). Overall, participants were enthusiastic about the trial and recognized its relevance; clinicians praised the study design and organization; and patients valued the use of electronic questionnaires. Suggestions for improvements included preventing potential bias arising from the use of PNBs (i.e., via standardization or stratification) and reducing patient burden (i.e., decreasing postoperative questionnaires). CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians who participated in a pilot RCT generally accept the clinical equipoise between OA versus OFA after outpatient general surgery and recognize the need for methodologically robust trials to inform evidence-based analgesia prescribing.

Feasibility of Prospectively Comparing Opioid Analgesia With Opioid-Free Analgesia After Outpatient General Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has contributed to the current opioid crisis; however, the value of prescribing opioids at surgical discharge remains uncertain. We aimed to estimate the extent to which opioid prescribing after discharge affects self-reported pain intensity and adverse events in comparison with an opioid-free analgesic regimen. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, Biosis, and CINAHL from Jan 1, 1990, until July 8, 2021. We included multidose randomised controlled trials comparing opioid versus opioid-free analgesia in patients aged 15 years or older, discharged after undergoing a surgical procedure according to the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity definition (minor, moderate, major, and major complex). We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials) in duplicate. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported pain intensity on day 1 after discharge (standardised to 0-10 cm visual analogue scale) and vomiting up to 30 days. Pain intensity at further timepoints, pain interference, other adverse events, risk of dissatisfaction, and health-care reutilisation were also assessed. We did random-effects meta-analyses and appraised evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations scoring system. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42020153050). FINDINGS: 47 trials (n=6607 patients) were included. 30 (64%) trials involved elective minor procedures (63% dental procedures) and 17 (36%) trials involved procedures of moderate extent (47% orthopaedic and 29% general surgery procedures). Compared with opioid-free analgesia, opioid prescribing did not reduce pain on the first day after discharge (weighted mean difference 0·01cm, 95% CI -0·26 to 0·27; moderate certainty) or at other postoperative timepoints (moderate-to-very-low certainty). Opioid prescribing was associated with increased risk of vomiting (relative risk 4·50, 95% CI 1·93 to 10·51; high certainty) and other adverse events, including nausea, constipation, dizziness, and drowsiness (high-to-moderate certainty). Opioids did not affect other outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Findings from this meta-analysis support that opioid prescribing at surgical discharge does not reduce pain intensity but does increase adverse events. Evidence relied on trials focused on elective surgeries of minor and moderate extent, suggesting that clinicians can consider prescribing opioid-free analgesia in these surgical settings. Data were largely derived from low-quality trials, and none involved patients having major or major-complex procedures. Given these limitations, there is a great need to advance the quality and scope of research in this field. FUNDING: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Construct validity and responsiveness of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) as a measure of recovery after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Returning to preoperative levels of physical function is highly valued by patients recovering from surgery. The Duke Activity Status Index (DASI, a 12-item questionnaire) may be a simple yet robust tool to assess postoperative recovery of functional capacity. This study assessed construct validity and responsiveness of the DASI as a measure of recovery after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Data from a trial on early mobilization after colorectal surgery were analyzed. Patients completed the DASI questionnaire preoperatively and at postoperative weeks (POW) 2 and 4. Construct validity was assessed by testing the primary a priori hypotheses that postoperative DASI scores (1) are higher in patients without vs with postoperative complications and (2) correlate with six-minute walk test distance (6MWD). Exploratory analyses assessed the association between DASI scores and (1) preoperative physical status [higher (ASA ≤ 2) vs lower (ASA > 2)], (2) stoma creation (no stoma vs stoma), (3) age [younger (≤ 75 years) vs older (> 75 years)], (4) time to readiness for discharge [shorter (≤ 4 days) vs longer (> 4 days)], and (5) surgical approach (laparoscopic vs open). Responsiveness was assessed by testing a priori hypotheses that DASI scores are higher (1) preoperatively vs at POW2 and (2) at POW4 vs POW2. Mean differences in DASI scores were obtained using linear regression. The association between DASI and 6MWD was assessed via Pearson correlation. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 100 patients undergoing colorectal surgery (mean age 65; 57% male; 81% laparoscopic). Mean DASI scores were 47.9 ± 12.1 preoperatively, 22.4 ± 12.7 at POW2, and 33.2 ± 15.7 at POW4. The data supported our two primary construct validity hypotheses, as well as 3/5 exploratory hypotheses. Both responsiveness hypotheses were supported. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support that the DASI questionnaire can be a useful tool to assess postoperative recovery of functional capacity in research and clinical practice.

Prognostic value of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Complications are common after colorectal surgery and remain a target for quality improvement. Lower preoperative physical functioning is associated with poor postoperative outcomes, but assessment often relies on subjective judgment or resource-intensive tests. Recent literature suggests that self-reported functional capacity, measured using the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), is a strong predictor of postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to estimate the extent to which DASI predicts 30-day complications after colorectal surgery. METHODS: In this observational study, 100 patients undergoing colorectal resection [median age 63, 57% men, 81% laparoscopic, 37% rectal surgery] responded to DASI two weeks preoperatively. Complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo and quantified using the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Our primary analysis targeted the relationship between preoperative DASI and odds of complications. Secondary analyses focused on 30-day severe complications, CCI, readmissions, and length of stay (LOS). We also explored the predictive ability of DASI with scores dichotomized based on a previously validated threshold (≤ 34). RESULTS: Mean preoperative DASI was 48 ± 12. Forty-six patients (46%) experienced 30-day complications (8% severe, CCI 9.6 ± 15). Lower DASI scores were associated with higher odds of complications (OR 1.08, 95%CI 1.03-1.14; p = 0.001). Preoperative DASI was also an independent predictor of severe complications, CCI, and readmissions. The predictive ability was supported when scores were dichotomized at ≤ 34. CONCLUSION: DASI is a significant predictor of postoperative complications after colorectal surgery. This questionnaire can be easily implemented in clinical practice to identify patients with low preoperative functional capacity and target interventions to those at higher risk.

Do postoperative telemedicine interventions with a communication feature reduce emergency department visits and readmissions?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions after surgery are common and represent a significant cost-burden on the healthcare system. A notable portion of these unplanned visits are the result of expected complications or normal recovery after surgery, suggesting that improved coordination and communication in the outpatient setting could potentially prevent these. Telemedicine can improve patient-physician communication and as such may have a role in limiting unplanned emergency department visits and readmissions in postoperative patients. METHODS: Major electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in surgical patients examining the effect of postoperative telemedicine interventions with a communication feature on 30-day readmissions and emergency department visits as compared to current standard postoperative follow-up. All surgical subspecialties were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias using standardized tools. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ED visits and readmissions. Our secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the intervention. RESULTS: 29 studies were included in the final analysis. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and the remaining fifteen were cohort studies. Eighteen studies reported 30-day ED visit as an outcome. There was no overall reduction in 30-day ED visit in the telemedicine group (RR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.70-1.12). Twenty-two studies reported 30-day readmission as an outcome. The overall pooled estimate did not show a difference in this outcome (RR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74-1.09). Fifteen studies reported a metric of patient satisfaction regarding utilization of the telemedicine intervention. All studies demonstrated high levels of satisfaction (> 80%) with the telemedicine intervention. DISCUSSION: This review fails to demonstrate a clear reduction ED visits and readmissions to support use of a telemedicine intervention across the board. This may be in part explained by significant heterogeneity in the proportions of potentially preventable visits in each surgical specialty. As such, targeting interventions to specific surgical settings may prove most useful.

The association of alvimopan treatment with postoperative outcomes after abdominal surgery: A systematic review across different surgical procedures and contexts of perioperative care.

BACKGROUND: Alvimopan is a Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment to accelerate gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery; however, benefits may vary across different procedures and contexts of care. The purpose of this study is to summarize the evidence regarding the effect of alvimopan on postoperative outcomes after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Major databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies comparing alvimopan versus control. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool 2.0 (for randomized controlled trials) and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Intervention tool (for nonrandomized studies). Results were appraised descriptively as heterogeneity in reporting and risk of bias hindered meta-analysis. Quality of evidence across different surgical procedures and contexts of care (ie, open versus minimally invasive surgery, traditional care versus enhanced recovery pathway) was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials and 35 nonrandomized studies were identified. Evidence of low to moderate certainty supports that alvimopan reduces length of stay and improves gastrointestinal recovery after open bowel resection and open radical cystectomy. Limited evidence supports alvimopan for surgeries not listed in Food and Drug Administration labels (ie, total abdominal hysterectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection). Similar effects were observed in traditional and enhanced recovery pathway settings, but enhanced recovery pathway elements varied across studies. There is very low certainty of evidence supporting alvimopan for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports that alvimopan improves outcomes after open bowel resection and open radical cystectomy. Benefits for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and treated in contemporary enhanced recovery pathway settings remain uncertain. These findings contribute important new knowledge to inform evidence-based alvimopan prescribing.

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive prescribing after surgery has contributed to a public health crisis of opioid addiction and overdose in North America. However, the value of prescribing opioids to manage postoperative pain after surgical discharge remains unclear. We propose a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the extent to which opioid analgesia impact postoperative pain intensity and adverse events in comparison to opioid-free analgesia in patients discharged after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL and PsycINFO) will be searched for multi-dose randomised-trials examining the comparative effectiveness of opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge. Studies published from January 1990 to July 2019 will be targeted, with no language restrictions. The search will be re-run before manuscript submission to include most recent literature. We will consider studies involving patients undergoing minor and major surgery. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, assess eligibility, extract data and evaluate risk of bias. Our main outcomes of interest are pain intensity and postoperative vomiting. Study results will be pooled using random effects models. When trials report outcomes for a common domain (eg, pain intensity) using different scales, we will convert effect sizes to a common standard metric (eg, Visual Analogue Scale). Minimally important clinical differences reported in previous literature will be considered when interpreting results. Subgroup analyses defined a priori will be conducted to explore heterogeneity. Risk of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The quality of evidence for all outcomes will be evaluated using the GRADE rating system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since this is a systematic review of published studies. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Further knowledge dissemination will be sought via public and patient organisations focussed on pain and opioid-related harms.

Preventing opioid prescription after major surgery: a scoping review of opioid-free analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has been recognised as a contributor to the current crisis of opioid addiction and overdose. Clinicians may potentially tackle this crisis by using opioid-free postoperative analgesia; however, the scientific literature addressing this approach is sparse and heterogeneous, thereby limiting robust conclusions. A scoping review was conducted to systematically map the extent, range, and nature of the literature addressing postoperative opioid-free analgesia. METHODS: Eight bibliographic databases were searched for studies addressing opioid-free analgesia after a major surgery. We extracted the study characteristics, including design, country, year, surgical procedure(s), and interventions. Results were organised thematically according to surgical specialty and targeted phase of recovery: in hospital (early recovery, ≤24 h after operation; intermediate recovery, >24 h) and post-discharge (late recovery). Reporting was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement for scoping reviews. RESULTS: We identified 424 studies addressing postoperative opioid-free analgesia. The number of studies conducted in countries where the opioid crisis is primarily focused was remarkably low (USA, n=11 [3%]; Canada, n=5 [1%]). Many RCTs compared opioid-free vs opioid analgesia during hospital stay (n=117), but few targeted analgesia post-discharge (n=8). Studies were predominantly focused on procedures in orthopaedic, general, and gynaecological/obstetric surgery. Limited attention has been directed towards non-pharmacological pain interventions. We did not identify knowledge synthesis studies (i.e. systematic reviews and meta-analyses) focused on the comparative effectiveness of opioid-free vs opioid analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids remain a mainstay analgesic for managing pain after surgery, but alternative analgesia strategies should not be overlooked. This scoping review indicates numerous opportunities for future research targeting opioid-free postoperative analgesia. REVIEW REGISTRATION: http://www.researchregistry.com; ID: reviewregistry576.