Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short‐term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non‐transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed‐effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

Background Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. Methods Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30‐day major complication rate, defined as Clavien‐Dindo grade III‐V. Results Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27–2.11, P < 0.001). Conclusions Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection.

Background and study aims: Endoscopic biliary stent placement is a minimally invasive intervention for patients with biliary strictures. Stent patency and function time are crucial factors. Suprapapillary versus transpapillary stent positioning may contribute to stent function time, so a meta-analysis was performed in this comparison. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE databases to find data on suprapapillary stent placement compared to the transpapillary method via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in cases of biliary stenosis of any etiology and any stent type until December 2020. We carried out a meta-analysis focusing on the following outcomes: stent patency, stent migration, rate of cholangitis and pancreatitis, and other reported complications. Results: Three prospective and ten retrospective studies involving 1028 patients were included. Suprapapillary stent placement appeared to be superior to transpapillary stent positioning in patency (weighted mean difference = 50.23 days, 95% CI: 8.56, 91.98; p = 0.0.018). In a subgroup analysis of malignant indications, suprapapillary positioning showed a lower rate of cholangitis (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.93; p = 0.036). Another subgroup analysis investigating metal stents in a suprapapillary position resulted in a lower rate of pancreatitis (OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.95; p = 0.043) compared to transpapillary stent placement. There was no difference in stent migration rates between the two groups (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.17, 2.72; p = 0.577). Conclusions: Based on our results, suprapapillary biliary stenting has longer stent patency. Moreover, the stent migration rate did not differ between the suprapapillary and transpapillary groups.

Aim:The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019-2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 ('rarely') to 4 ('always'). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017.Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they 'most often' or 'always' adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from 'rarely' to 'always' in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.

Background Decades of debate surround the use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy. To the present day, the role of IOC is controversial as regards decreasing the rate of bile duct injury (BDI). We aimed to review and analyse the available literature on the benefits of IOC during cholecystectomy. Methods A systematic literature search was performed until 19 October 2020 in five databases using the following search keys: cholangiogra* and cholecystectomy. The primary outcomes were BDI and retained stone rate. To investigate the differences between the groups (routine IOC vs selective IOC and IOC vs no IOC), we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Of the 19,863 articles, 38 were selected and 32 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Routine IOC showed no superiority compared to selective IOC in decreasing BDI (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.66; 1.24). Comparing IOC and no IOC, no statistically significant differences were found in the case of BDI, retained stone rate, readmission rate, and length of hospital stay. We found an increased risk of conversion rate to open surgery in the no IOC group (RR = 0.64, CI 0.51; 0.78). The operation time was significantly longer in the IOC group compared to the no IOC group (WMD = 11.25 min, 95% CI 6.57; 15.93). Conclusion Our findings suggest that IOC may not be indicated in every case, however, the evidence is very uncertain. Further good quality research is required to address this question.