Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation.

BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease.

AIM: There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology. METHODS: Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines. RESULTS: All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

Patient and healthcare professional perceptions of colostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life following rectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The perception of colostomy-related problems and their impact on health-related quality of life (QoL) may differ between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to investigate this using the Colostomy Impact Score (CIS) tool. METHODS: Healthcare professionals including consultant colorectal surgeons, stoma nurses, ward nurses, trainees and medical students were recruited. An online survey was designed. From the 17 items used to develop the CIS, participants chose the seven factors they thought to confer the strongest negative impact on the QoL of patients with a colostomy. They were then asked to rank the 12 responses made by patients to the final seven factors contained in the CIS. Results were compared with the original patient rankings at the time of development of the CIS. RESULTS: A total of 156 healthcare professionals (50·4 per cent of the pooled professionals) from 17 countries completed the survey. Of the original seven items in the CIS, six were above the threshold for random selection. Ranking the responses, a poor match between participants and the original score was detected for 49·7 per cent of the professionals. The most under-rated item originally present in the CIS was stool consistency, reported by 47 of the 156 professionals (30·1 per cent), whereas frequency of changing the stoma bag was the item not included in the CIS that was chosen most often by professionals (124, 79·5 per cent). Significant differences were not observed between different groups of professionals. CONCLUSION: The perspective of colostomy-related problems differs between patients with a colostomy and healthcare professionals.

The colostomy impact score: development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for rectal cancer patients with a permanent colostomy. A population-based study.

AIM: The aim was to develop and validate a simple scoring system evaluating the impact of colostomy dysfunction on quality of life (QOL) in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer treatment. METHOD: In this population-based study, 610 patients with a permanent colostomy after previous rectal cancer treatment during the period 2001-2007 completed two questionnaires: (i) the basic stoma questionnaire consisting of 22 items about stoma function with one anchor question addressing the overall stoma impact on QOL and (ii) the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30. Answers from half of the cohort were used to develop the score and subsequently validated on the remaining half. Logistic regression analyses identified and selected items for the score and multivariate analysis established the score value allocated to each item. RESULTS: The colostomy impact score includes seven items with a total range from 0 to 38 points. A score of ≥ 10 indicates major colostomy impact (Major CI). The score has a sensitivity of 85.7% for detecting patients with significant stoma impact on QOL. Using the EORTC QLQ scales, patients with Major CI experienced significant impairment in their QOL compared to the Minor CI group. CONCLUSION: This new scoring system appears valid for the assessment of the impact on QOL from having a permanent colostomy in a Danish rectal cancer population. It requires validation in non-Danish populations prior to its acceptance as a valuable patient-reported outcome measure for patients internationally.

Diagnosing acute appendicitis: surgery or imaging?

AIM: Investigation of suspected appendicitis varies widely across different countries, which creates variation in outcome for patients. Use of imaging drives much of this variation, with concerns over delay of imaging and radiation exposure of computed tomography being balanced against the risks of unnecessary surgery. METHOD: Two national, prospective snapshot audits (UK n = 3326 and Netherlands n = 1934) reported investigation, management and outcome of appendicectomy and can be compared to generate treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Preoperative imaging was conducted in 32.8% of UK patients in contrast to 99.5% of patients in the Netherlands. A large difference in the normal appendicectomy rate was observed (20.6% in the UK vs 3.2% in the Netherlands) and the connection between these two outcome differences cannot be neglected. CONCLUSION: This article discusses the role of imaging in the diagnostic work-up of patients who are suspected of acute appendicitis, comparing national snapshot studies as a model to do so.

The effect of ethnicity on in-hospital mortality following emergency abdominal surgery: a national cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVES: Ethnicity has complex effects on health and the delivery of health care in part related to language and cultural barriers. This may be important in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery where delays have profound impact on outcomes. The aim here was to test if variations in outcomes (e.g. in-hospital mortality) exist by ethnic group following emergency abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using population-level routinely collected administrative data from England (Hospital Episode Statistics). METHODS: Adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal operations between April 2008 and March 2012 were identified. Operations were divided into: 'major', 'hepatobiliary' or 'appendectomy/minor'. The primary outcome was all cause in-hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable analysis odds ratios (OR with 95% confidence intervals, CI) adjusting for selected factors were performed. RESULTS: 359,917 patients were identified and 80.7% of patients were White British, 4.7% White (Other), 2.4% Afro-Caribbean, 1.6% Indian, 2.6% Chinese, 3.1% Asian (Other) and 4.9% not known, with crude in-hospital mortality rates of 4.4%, 3.1%, 2.0%, 2.6%, 1.6%, 1.7% and 5.17%, respectively. The majority of patients underwent appendectomy/minor (61.9%) compared to major (20.9%) or hepatobiliary (17.2%) operations (P < 0.001) with an in-hospital mortality of 1.7%, 11.5% and 3.9% respectively. Adjusted mortality was largely similar across ethnic groups except where ethnicity was not recorded (compared to White British patients following major surgery OR 2.05, 95% 1.82-2.31, P < 0.01, hepatobiliary surgery OR 2.78, 95% CI 2.31-3.36, P = 0.01 and appendectomy/minor surgery OR 1.78, 95% 1.52-2.08, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is not associated with poorer outcomes following emergency abdominal surgery. However, ethnicity is not recorded in 5% of this cohort and this represents an important, yet un-definable, group with significantly poorer outcomes.

Should laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure be the first line approach in all patients?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To assess if the laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's can be attempted in all patients, without detriment to short or long-term outcomes if the patient is subsequently converted to open. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all reversals under 8 surgeons at a single unit over 105 months, two surgeons attempting laparoscopic reversal in all patients, two pre-selecting for the laparoscopic approach and four utilising the open approach. Long-term follow-up data for re-admissions, re-operations and incisional hernia rate obtained from a postal questionnaire. RESULTS: 45 laparoscopic and 50 primary open reversals were identified. There was no difference in the mean age or previous peritonitis rate in either group. Laparoscopic conversion rate was 29% (13 patients). On intention to treat analysis, a significant difference was identified in the overall 30-day post-operative surgical morbidity (8.9% Laparoscopic-attempted vs 26.0% Open, p = 0.030). There was no difference in operating times (mean 164 vs 172 min, p = 0.896) despite the 13 patients converted to an open procedure. Mean length of stay was significantly lower in the laparoscopic-attempted group at 6.8 days (5.2-8.4) vs 14.9 days (6.4-23.7) in the open group (p = 0.001). Anastomotic leak rates were not statistically different. The median follow up was 27 months (range 6-105); 60% of patients completed a postal follow-up questionnaire. There was no difference in short-term or long-term re-admission or reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartamann's is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity even in unselected patients. Long-term outcomes are similar.

Raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and perioperative visual loss in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a catastrophe waiting to happen? A systematic review of evidence from other surgical specialities.

BACKGROUND: Case reports of healthy patients experiencing total perioperative visual loss (POVL) after elective laparoscopic surgery, including colorectal resection, are appearing increasingly frequently in the literature. We reviewed the literature exploring the relationship between patient positioning and intraocular pressure (IOP) across all surgical specialties. This was then applied to the potential risk of developing POVL in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the relevant literature was performed to identify all studies exploring the relationship between intraocular pressure and patient positioning. RESULTS: Eight relevant studies on both elective patients and healthy non-anaesthetised volunteers in the spinal, neurosurgical and urological fields were identified which explore the changes in IOP according to patient positioning. These all reported significant rises in IOP in both head-down positioning and prone positioning, and the strongest effects were seen in those patients placed in combined head-down and prone position (such as prone jackknife). Rises in IOP were time-dependent in all studies. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery in a prolonged head-down position are likely to experience raised IOP and thus are at risk of POVL. Those having a laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision with prone positioning for the perineal component are probably those in the greatest danger. Surgeons need to be aware of this under-recognised but potentially catastrophic complication.

The results of a structured diagnostic pathway designed to minimise the chance of breast cancer misdiagnosis.

AIM: To describe results from a structured clinic pathway designed to minimise inaccuracies and diagnostic delays in the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: Patients referred to our breast clinic undergo clinical, imaging and biopsy assessment according to a standard protocol. Over 4 years, patients who were discharged with a benign diagnosis and later found to have breast cancer were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 4366 new referrals were seen in the symptomatic breast clinic and 571 (13%) new cancers were diagnosed. Fourteen of the new cancer patients had been seen in the clinic previously (range 7-48 months) and discharged with a benign diagnosis. None of these tumours appeared to result from misdiagnosis of a lesion previously assessed to be benign. The rate of development of cancer in the cohort discharged with a benign diagnosis was closely similar to that in the normal United Kingdom population. CONCLUSIONS: A structured breast clinic pathway can produce a rate of diagnostic accuracy closely approaching 100%.

A prospective study of use of a clinicopathological score to select patients for the type of axillary surgery.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to prospectively assess a previously described and independently validated clinicopathological score for counselling and selecting patients for sentinel node biopsy or axillary clearance. The clinicopathological score is based on the size of primary tumour, grade of primary tumour, age of the patient, quadrant of the breast and lymphovascular invasion, which are all independent predictors of lymph node involvement. The clinicopathological score may assist patients to decide if they would benefit from sentinel node biopsy or axillary clearance as a primary procedure. METHODS: All patients with invasive breast cancer were counselled for the possible rate of lymph node positivity, need for a second operation and false negative rate for sentinel node biopsy. Based on a previously validated clinicopathological score (Table 1), patients with a score of 10 or below were classed as less likely to have positive lymph nodes and hence were offered for minimally invasive axillary surgery and patients with a score of 11 or above were regarded to have high risk of nodal involvement and were counselled for axillary clearance. RESULTS: Only 3 of 31 patients in the low score group had axillary metastasis and needed further axillary treatment. The node positivity rate in the low score group was 10% compared to 63% for the high score group. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that until pre-operative axillary staging becomes widely available, by using the clinicopathological score for patient's selection for minimally invasive axillary surgery, it may be possible to avoid a second axillary procedure in a large majority of patients.