Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs are associated with reduced hospital morbidity and mortality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the introduction of ERAS care improved the adverse events in colorectal surgery. In a cohort study, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay were compared between ERAS patients and carefully matched historical controls. Methods Patients were matched for their type of disease, the type of surgery, P-Possum (Portsmouth-Possum), CR-Possum (Colorectal-Possum) Physiological and Operative Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM), gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The primary outcome measures of this study were mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcome measures were fluid intake, length of hospital stay, the number of relaparotomies, and the number of readmissions within 30 days. Data on the ERAS patients were collected prospectively. Results Sixty-one patients treated according to the ERAS program were compared with 122 patients who received conventional postoperative care. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA grade, P-Possum (PortsmouthPossum), CR-Possum (Colorectal-Possum) score, type of surgery, stoma formation, type of disease, and gender. Morbidity was lower in the ERAS group compared to the control group (14.8% versus 33.6% respectively; P=<0.01). Patients in the ERAS group received significantly less fluid and spent fewer days in the hospital (median 6 days, range 3-50 vs. median 9 days, range 3-138; P=0.032). There was no difference between the ERAS and the control group for mortality (0% vs. 1.6%; P=0.55) and readmission rate (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P=0.60). Conclusion Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program reduces morbidity and the length of hospital stay for patients undergoing elective colonic or rectal surgery.

Colectomy for acute colitis is complicated by considerable morbidity. The incidence of adverse outcome has substantially decreased over the last three decades, but further improvements are still required. The retrospective nature of the included studies allows for a considerable degree of selection bias that limits robust and clinically sound conclusions about both conventional and laparoscopic surgery.

BackgroundPreoperative risk prediction to assess mortality and morbidity may be helpful to surgical decision making. The aim of this study was to compare mortality and morbidity of colorectal resections performed in a tertiary referral center with mortality and morbidity as predicted with physiological and operative score for enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM), Portsmouth POSSUM (P-POSSUM), and colorectal POSSUM (CR-POSSUM). The second aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of different POSSUM scores in surgery performed for malignancy, inflammatory bowel diseases, and diverticulitis. POSSUM scoring was also evaluated in colorectal resection in acute vs. elective setting. In procedures performed for malignancy, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) score was assessed in the same way for comparison.MethodsPOSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM predictor equations for mortality were applied in a retrospective case–control study to 734 patients who had undergone colorectal resection. The total group was assessed first. Second, the predictive value of outcome after surgery was assessed for malignancy (n = 386), inflammatory bowel diseases (n = 113), diverticulitis (n = 91), and other indications, e.g., trauma, endometriosis, volvulus, or ischemia (n = 144). Third, all subgroups were assessed in relation to the setting in which surgery was performed: acute or elective. In patients with malignancy, the ACPGBI score was calculated as well. In all groups, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed.ResultsPOSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM have a significant predictive value for outcome after colorectal surgery. Within the total population as well as in all four subgroups, there is no difference in the area under the curve between the POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and CR-POSSUM scores. In the subgroup analysis, smallest areas under the ROC curve are seen in operations performed for malignancy, which is significantly worse than for diverticulitis and in operations performed for other indications. For elective procedures, P-POSSUM and CR-POSSUM predict outcome significantly worse in patients operated for carcinoma than in patients with diverticulitis. In acute surgical interventions, CR-POSSUM predicts mortality better in diverticulitis than in patients operated for other indications. The ACPGBI score has a larger area under the curve than any of the POSSUM scores. Morbidity as predicted by POSSUM is most accurate in procedures for diverticulitis and worst when the indication is malignancy.ConclusionThe POSSUM scores predict outcome significantly better than can be expected by chance alone. Regarding the indication for surgery, each POSSUM score predicts outcome in patients operated for diverticulitis or other indications more accurately than for malignancy. The ACPGBI score is found to be superior to the various POSSUM scores in patients who have (elective) resection of colorectal malignancy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs help to reduce the length of hospital stay after rectal surgery.

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.