In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new methodology to prioritize questions and rate the importance of health outcomes for a COVID-19 dental guideline.
Panel members rated the topic and the questions\' overall importance, using a 9-point scale (1 = least important; 9 = most important). In addition, they rated six criteria if multiple questions received the same overall importance rating: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. Panellists also rated the importance of each outcome, defined with health outcome descriptors, using a 9-point scale and the utility of health outcomes on a visual analogue scale. The correlation between each criterion and overall question importance was tested by Spearman correlation coefficient.
Of seven topics, four were rated as high priority and three were rated as important, but not of high priority. Thirty-six percent of the questions (18/50) were rated as high priority to address in the guideline and 64% (32/50) were rated as an important question but not of high priority. Of the 11 outcomes, 72.7% were rated as critical for decision making. The mean utility rating was 0.57 (SD 0.32), with a minimum mean rating of 0.16 and a maximum of 0.76 (SD 0.23).
This case study demonstrated that this approach provides a rigorous and transparent methodology to conduct the prioritizations of guideline topics, questions and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients.
METHODS: A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups.
RESULTS: Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.
METHODS: Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients.
METHODS: Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort.
RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese.