Lower endoscopy (LE) is the standard diagnostic modality for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Conversely, computed tomographic angiography (CTA) offers an immediate non-invasive diagnosis visualizing the entire gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study was to compare these 2 modalities with regards to diagnostic value and bleeding control. Tertiary center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients admitted for LGIB between 2006 and 2012. Comparison of patients with LE vs. CTA as first exam, respectively, with emphasis on diagnostic accuracy and bleeding control. Final analysis included 183 patients; 122 (66.7%) had LE first, while 32 (17.5%) had CTA; 29 (15.8%) had neither of both exams. Median time to CTA was shorter compared to LE (3 (IQR = 8.2) vs. 22 (IQR = 36.9) hours, P < 0.001). Active bleeding was identified in 31% with CTA vs. 15% with LE (P = 0.031); a non-actively bleeding source was found by CTA and LE in 22 vs. 31%, respectively (P = 0.305). Bleeding control required endoscopy in 19%, surgery in 14% and embolization in 1.6%, while 66% were treated conservatively. Post-interventional bleeding was mostly controlled by endoscopic therapy (57%). 80% of patients with active bleeding on CTA required surgery. Post-interventional LGIB was effectively addressed by LE. For other causes of LGIB, CTA was efficient, and more available than colonoscopy. Treatment was conservative for most patients. In case of active bleeding, CTA could localize the bleeding source and predict the need for surgery.

Crohn’s disease is an incurable and frequently progressive entity with major impact on affected patients. Up to half of patients require surgery in the first 10 years after diagnosis and over 75% of operated patients require at least one further surgery within lifetime. In order to minimize surgical risk, modifiable risk factors such as nutritional status need to be optimized. This systematic review on preoperative nutritional support in adult Crohn’s patients between 1997 and 2017 aimed to provide an overview on target populations, screening modalities, routes of administration, and expected benefits. Pertinent study characteristics (prospective vs. retrospective, sample size, control group, limitations) were defined a priori. Twenty-nine studies were retained, of which 14 original studies (9 retrospective, 4 prospective, and 1 randomized controlled trial) and 15 reviews. Study heterogeneity was high regarding nutritional regimens and outcome, and meta-analysis could not be performed. Most studies were conducted without matched control group and thus provide modest level of evidence. Consistently, malnutrition was found to be a major risk factor for postoperative complications, and both enteral and parenteral routes were efficient in decreasing postoperative morbidity. Current guidelines for nutrition in general surgery apply also to Crohn’s patients. The route of administration should be chosen according to disease presentation and patients’ condition. Further studies are needed to strengthen the evidence.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines advocate early postoperative mobilisation to counteract catabolic changes due to immobilisation and maintain muscle strength. The present study aimed to assess compliance to postoperative mobilisation according to ERAS recommendations. This is a retrospective cohort study on consecutive colorectal surgical procedures treated within an established ERAS protocol within a single center between May 2011 and May 2017. Demographics, surgical details, ERAS related items and surgical outcome were prospectively assessed in a dedicated database and compared between ambulant patients (at least 6 h out of bed at postoperative day (POD) 1) vs. patients not meeting the target (delayed mobilisation). Risk factors for decreased postoperative mobilisation were identified through multivariable logistic regression. 1170 patients were retained. 676 patients (58%) did not mobilise as recommended by ERAS protocol at POD1. Emergency operation (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.40; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.18-0.91, p = 0.028), age > 70 years (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.47-1.00, p = 0.050) and intraoperative total fluids > 2000 mL (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37-0.93, p = 0.025) were independent risk factors for delayed mobilisation. Patients with delayed mobilisation had significantly more overall (Clavien grade IV) (55% vs. 29%, p=<0.001), major (Clavien grade IIIb-V) (16% vs. 7%, p=<0.001) and respiratory (12% vs. 4%, p=<0.001) complications, as well as longer length of stay (12 ± 14 vs. 6±7days, p=<0.001). More than half of patients did not mobilise as recommended by ERAS guidelines. Emergency surgery, advanced age and fluid overload were independent risk factors for delayed mobilisation, which was associated with increased postoperative complications.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs has shown clinical benefits in gynecologic surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare costs before and after implementation of an ERAS program for gynecologic surgery. Retrospective study comparing perioperative costs between consecutive patient groups undergoing gynecologic surgery (benign, staging or debulking) (I, 2012-13) prior, (II) immediately after, and (III, 2014-16) the three years after ERAS implementation. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative real costs were collected for each patient via hospital administration. A bootstrap independent t-test was used for comparison. Demographics and preoperative characteristics were similar between group I (n = 42), II (n = 51), and III (ERAS I; n = 122, II; n = 134, III; n = 90). Average ERAS-specific costs were $687 per patient. Total mean individual costs per patient were $13'329 (95% confidence interval (CI): 11'301-15'213) and $17'710 (95% CI: 14'452-21'605) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively, resulting in net savings of $4'381 (95% CI: 549-8'752, p = 0.043) in favour of ERAS group. Cost savings were explained by lower pre- and postoperative costs (difference: $5'011 95% CI: 1'587-8'998, p = 0.019). Total costs continued to decrease by $2'520 (mean: $15'190, 95% CI: 13'791-16'631) in year 1, by $3'077 (mean: $14'633, 95% CI: 13'378-16'250) and $5'070 (mean: $12'640, 95% CI: 11'460-14'015) (p = 0.03) respectively, in year 2 and 3 after implementation. Based on real costs and including specific costs due to ERAS implementation, ERAS program in gynecologic surgery induced significant decrease of overall costs by $4'381 per patient. Total costs continued to decrease in the three years after implementation.

Background The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m² or more) was performed. Results A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non‐obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71). Conclusion Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non‐obese patients.