Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to identify the incidence trends of primary and secondary peritoneal surface malignancies in a representative Czech population.MethodsData were obtained from patients registered in the Czech National Cancer Registry between 1979 and 2016. The incidence rates were analyzed between 2012 and 2016. To observe the incidence trends, we analyzed the data from two time periods, 1979–2005 and 2006–2016. The analyzed data included age, sex, and the histological types and primary origins of the malignancies. The Cochrane-Armitage test for linear trends was used for verification of the null hypothesis. The significance level established for hypothesis testing was p = 0.05.ResultsBetween 2012 and 2016, 230 patients with primary peritoneal tumors were identified and divided into the following groups according to their “International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision” codes: malignant neoplasm of specified parts of the peritoneum (C48.1); malignant neoplasm of the peritoneum, unspecified (C48.2); and malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of the retroperitoneum and peritoneum (C48.8). Moreover, 549 primary tumors of the appendix (C18.1, encompassing all appendiceal malignancies) and 3137 secondary synchronous peritoneal carcinomatoses of other primary origins were documented. The age-adjusted incidence of primary peritoneal tumors in 2012–2016 was 4.36/year/1,000,000 inhabitants. The age-adjusted incidence of synchronous secondary peritoneal malignancies in 2014–2016 was 99.0/year/1,000,000 inhabitants. The diagnoses of primary peritoneal malignancies followed a stable trend between 1979 and 2016. However, the incidences of primary tumors of the appendix increased by 76.7%.ConclusionsThe data produced in our study ought to clarify the status of peritoneal surface malignancies in the Czech Republic, which can lead to improved planning and development of therapeutic interventions as well as physician training.

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the costs of CRS and HIPEC and treatment of the related postoperative complications in the public healthcare system. We also aimed to identify the risk factors that increase the cost of CRS and HIPEC. Materials and methods: We retrospectively evaluated 80 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between February 2016