Annual computed tomography scans do not improve outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer: a 10-year UK experience.

Evidence for the best approach to follow-up patients after esophagectomy for cancer is scant and conflicting, and has led to a wide variety in practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether our annual routine computed tomography (aCT) scan program changes outcomes. A retrospective review of 169 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer in our unit between 2001 and 2010 was performed. aCT scan was part of follow-up in all patients to 5 years. Minimum follow-up was 37 months. The primary outcome measure was survival. Recurrence was detected in 61 cases (36%). aCT scan diagnosed recurrence in only a minority of cases (17 cases, 28%). In the majority of patients, clinical evidence prompted an unplanned CT scan (uCT; 44 cases, 72%). There was no difference in unadjusted survival between the two groups (hazard ratio = 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.34-1.08, P = 0.090), nor was one more likely to receive secondary oncological treatment (aCT 41% vs. uCT 44%, P = 1.000). When we adjusted survival patterns for confounding covariates, the uCT cohort showed a protective effect (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.98, P = 0.042). These data suggest that aCT scans do not influence management or survival after esophagectomy. A consensus follow-up protocol for patients treated for esophageal cancer remains to be established.

Use of the surgical Apgar score to guide postoperative care.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical Apgar score (SAS) can predict 30-day major complications or death after surgery. Studies have validated the score in different patient populations and suggest it should be used to objectively guide postoperative care. We aimed to see whether using the SAS in a decisive approach in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT) would be likely to demonstrate an effect on postoperative care and clinical outcome. METHODS: A total of 143 adults undergoing general/vascular surgery in 9 National Health Service hospitals were recruited to a pilot single blinded RCT and the data for 139 of these were analysed. Participants were randomised to a control group with standard postoperative care or to an intervention group with care influenced (but not mandated) by the SAS (decisive approach). The notional primary outcome was 30-day major complications or death. RESULTS: Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups (control: 20/69 [29%], intervention: 23/70 [33%], p=0.622). Immediate admissions to the critical care unit was higher in the intervention group, especially in the SAS 0-4 subgroup (4/6 vs 2/7) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.310). Validity was also confirmed in area under the curve (AUC) analysis (AUC: 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found that a future RCT to investigate the effect of using the SAS in a decisive approach may demonstrate a difference in postoperative care. However, significant changes to the design are needed if differences in clinical outcome are to be achieved reliably. These would include a wider array of postoperative interventions implemented using a quality improvement approach in a stepped wedge cluster design with blinded collection of outcome data.

Total mesorectal excision for cancer following ventral mesh rectopexy.

Since the introduction of ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse, concern exists as to how this may interfere with subsequent rectal cancer surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first report of total mesorectal excision for cancer after such a rectopexy. We discuss surgical technique, pitfalls encountered and oncological outcome.