Prognostic models for surgical-site infection in gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients at high risk of surgical-site infection may allow clinicians to target interventions and monitoring to minimize associated morbidity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate prognostic tools for the prediction of surgical-site infection in gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: This systematic review sought to identify original studies describing the development and validation of prognostic models for 30-day SSI after gastrointestinal surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022311019). MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and IEEE Xplore were searched from 1 January 2000 to 24 February 2022. Studies were excluded if prognostic models included postoperative parameters or were procedure specific. A narrative synthesis was performed, with sample-size sufficiency, discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), and prognostic accuracy compared. RESULTS: Of 2249 records reviewed, 23 eligible prognostic models were identified. A total of 13 (57 per cent) reported no internal validation and only 4 (17 per cent) had undergone external validation. Most identified operative contamination (57 per cent, 13 of 23) and duration (52 per cent, 12 of 23) as important predictors; however, there remained substantial heterogeneity in other predictors identified (range 2-28). All models demonstrated a high risk of bias due to the analytic approach, with overall low applicability to an undifferentiated gastrointestinal surgical population. Model discrimination was reported in most studies (83 per cent, 19 of 23); however, calibration (22 per cent, 5 of 23) and prognostic accuracy (17 per cent, 4 of 23) were infrequently assessed. Of externally validated models (of which there were four), none displayed 'good' discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve greater than or equal to 0.7). CONCLUSION: The risk of surgical-site infection after gastrointestinal surgery is insufficiently described by existing risk-prediction tools, which are not suitable for routine use. Novel risk-stratification tools are required to target perioperative interventions and mitigate modifiable risk factors.

This study is about finding ways to predict if someone will get an infection after having surgery on their stomach and intestines. If doctors know who is at high risk of getting an infection, they can take steps to prevent it and help the patient recover faster. The researchers looked at all the recent studies that have tried to predict who might get an infection after surgery. They found 23 studies that were good enough to look at in more detail. The researchers found that the studies they looked at were not very good at predicting who might get an infection. Most of the studies did not even check if their predictions were accurate. The few studies that did check were not very good at it. This means that doctors cannot use these predictions to help their patients. This means that doctors need to find better ways to predict who might get an infection after surgery on their stomach and intestines. If they can do this, they can help their patients recover faster and avoid problems like infections.

Quality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann's, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools. METHODS: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies. CONCLUSION: Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data.

'I've got a little list'-the scourge of a surgical junior. A quality improvement project to change the surgical patient list in a district general hospital.

BACKGROUND: Junior doctors at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital spend hours every day creating and updating patient lists for all surgical specialties on Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. This not only consumes time that should be spent on clinical tasks, it allows for human errors, system errors and patient safety concerns. Our aim was to reduce time spent on the list and reduce the chance for error. METHODS: We measured the time junior doctors spent creating and updating the surgical lists for one specialty, and on-call shifts. Our first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle was to introduce clinical secretaries; this reduced the time spent by ward teams on the list but had no effect on the on-call team. We then worked with the hospital application developer to adapt software currently used to suit all surgical teams. Once completed, this software was rolled out alongside the existing spreadsheet method with a view to a switch after a transition period. RESULTS: The introduction of clinical secretaries reduced the time spent on the colorectal surgery list from 99.22 min a day to 43.38 min. The on-call team however did not benefit from this intervention. Following the introduction of the new software, the day on-call team time spent on the list changed from 121 min a day to 4.66 min. The night on-call team time changed from 91 min to 7.38 min. CONCLUSION: Reducing the time juniors spend compiling surgical lists has clear benefits to patients with extra time for junior doctors to clerk patients. The use of an automated system removes the chance of error in transcription of blood results. Due to the success of this project, colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, urology, vascular and on-call teams have adopted the new list permanently.