Loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective comparison of three techniques.

BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy (LI) formation is a common practice for patients undergoing low anterior resection or restorative ileo-anal pouch surgery. Ileostomy closure can be performed using a stapled or hand-sewn technique, with or without resection. If hand-sewn, the closure can be one or two layers. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated one technique to be superior, and meta-analyses are limited by the heterogeneity of published studies. Our primary aim is to compare stapled ileostomy closure with single- and two-layer hand-sewn closures. METHODS: This retrospective, single-centre cohort study included patients undergoing LI closure between January 1999 and April 2016. Patient demographics, anastomotic technique, operative time and patient outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Our analysis included 244 patients (median age 67 years, 43.4% female). There were no significant differences in mean operative times (71.5, 73.1 and 88.5 min, for stapled, single- and two-layer hand-sewn closures, respectively, adjusted overall P = 0.262), or morbidity (21.5% versus 20.4% versus 17.6%, adjusted overall P = 0.934) between stapled or hand-sewn anastomoses, and no mortality. Once adjusting for age, sex, American College of Anaesthesiology grade, and consultant surgeon, the length of stay was different (overall P = 0.034), being similar between stapled and single-layer closures (4.2 versus 5.5 days, P = 0.105), but significantly different between stapled and two-layer closures (4.2 versus 8.3 days, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Stapled and single-layered hand-sewn closures are similar in length of procedure, length of stay and complication rates. A two-layer, hand-sewn technique is associated with a significant increase in stay compared to a stapled ileostomy closure.

Intergenerational changes in adolescents' physical fitness and weight in New Zealand.

AIMS: This research examines fitness and body weight in two cohorts of adolescents, to determine continuity and changes in these measures across two generations. METHODS: Height, weight and fitness were measured in a population-based cohort of 15 year-olds in 1986/7 (Dunedin Study, n=968). The same measures were obtained for their 15-16 year-old children between 2007 and 2015 (Next Generation Study, n=343). Fitness was defined as maximal aerobic capacity (V'O2max). Height and weight were measured in all participants and fitness was adjusted for weight (V'O2max/kg). RESULTS: The Next Generation participants were, on average, heavier than the Dunedin Study participants had been, and had higher body mass index values (kg/m2). Unadjusted V'O2max values for boys did not differ between generations, but were lower in Next Generation girls compared to Dunedin Study girls. For both sexes, the Next Generation participants had lower weight-adjusted V'O2max values than the Dunedin Study participants. Compared to their parents, weight-adjusted V'O2max values were approximately 25% lower in girls and 15% lower in boys. CONCLUSIONS: Overall adolescents today appear to be less fit and heavier than their parents were at the same age. The decline in fitness over a generation is particularly evident in adolescent girls, although boys also have lower levels of fitness once body weight has been taken into account.

Hand sanitiser provision for reducing illness absences in primary school children: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The potential for transmission of infectious diseases offered by the school environment are likely to be an important contributor to the rates of infectious disease experienced by children. This study aimed to test whether the addition of hand sanitiser in primary school classrooms compared with usual hand hygiene would reduce illness absences in primary school children in New Zealand. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This parallel-group cluster randomised trial took place in 68 primary schools, where schools were allocated using restricted randomisation (1:1 ratio) to the intervention or control group. All children (aged 5 to 11 y) in attendance at participating schools received an in-class hand hygiene education session. Schools in the intervention group were provided with alcohol-based hand sanitiser dispensers in classrooms for the winter school terms (27 April to 25 September 2009). Control schools received only the hand hygiene education session. The primary outcome was the number of absence episodes due to any illness among 2,443 follow-up children whose caregivers were telephoned after each absence from school. Secondary outcomes measured among follow-up children were the number of absence episodes due to specific illness (respiratory or gastrointestinal), length of illness and illness absence episodes, and number of episodes where at least one other member of the household became ill subsequently (child or adult). We also examined whether provision of sanitiser was associated with experience of a skin reaction. The number of absences for any reason and the length of the absence episode were measured in all primary school children enrolled at the schools. Children, school administrative staff, and the school liaison research assistants were not blind to group allocation. Outcome assessors of follow-up children were blind to group allocation. Of the 1,301 and 1,142 follow-up children in the hand sanitiser and control groups, respectively, the rate of absence episodes due to illness per 100 child-days was similar (1.21 and 1.16, respectively, incidence rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18). The provision of an alcohol-based hand sanitiser dispenser in classrooms was not effective in reducing rates of absence episodes due to respiratory or gastrointestinal illness, the length of illness or illness absence episodes, or the rate of subsequent infection for other members of the household in these children. The percentage of children experiencing a skin reaction was similar (10.4% hand sanitiser versus 10.3% control, risk ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.30). The rate or length of absence episodes for any reason measured for all children also did not differ between groups. Limitations of the study include that the study was conducted during an influenza pandemic, with associated public health messaging about hand hygiene, which may have increased hand hygiene among all children and thereby reduced any additional effectiveness of sanitiser provision. We did not quite achieve the planned sample size of 1,350 follow-up children per group, although we still obtained precise estimates of the intervention effects. Also, it is possible that follow-up children were healthier than non-participating eligible children, with therefore less to gain from improved hand hygiene. However, lack of effectiveness of hand sanitiser provision on the rate of absences among all children suggests that this may not be the explanation. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of hand sanitiser in addition to usual hand hygiene in primary schools in New Zealand did not prevent disease of severity sufficient to cause school absence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000478213. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Hand sanitisers for reducing illness absences in primary school children in New Zealand: a cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: New Zealand has relatively high rates of morbidity and mortality from infectious disease compared with other OECD countries, with infectious disease being more prevalent in children compared with others in the population. Consequences of infectious disease in children may have significant economic and social impact beyond the direct effects of the disease on the health of the child; including absence from school, transmission of infectious disease to other pupils, staff, and family members, and time off work for parents/guardians. Reduction of the transmission of infectious disease between children at schools could be an effective way of reducing the community incidence of infectious disease. Alcohol based no-rinse hand sanitisers provide an alternative hand cleaning technology, for which there is some evidence that they may be effective in achieving this. However, very few studies have investigated the effectiveness of hand sanitisers, and importantly, the potential wider economic implications of this intervention have not been established. AIMS: The primary objective of this trial is to establish if the provision of hand sanitisers in primary schools in the South Island of New Zealand, in addition to an education session on hand hygiene, reduces the incidence rate of absence episodes due to illness in children. In addition, the trial will establish the cost-effectiveness and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the intervention in this setting. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be undertaken to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand sanitisers. Sixty-eight primary schools will be recruited from three regions in the South Island of New Zealand. The schools will be randomised, within region, to receive hand sanitisers and an education session on hand hygiene, or an education session on hand hygiene alone. Fifty pupils from each school in years 1 to 6 (generally aged from 5 to 11 years) will be randomly selected for detailed follow-up about their illness absences, providing a total of 3400 pupils. In addition, absence information will be collected on all children from the school rolls. Investigators not involved in the running of the trial, outcome assessors, and the statistician will be blinded to the group allocation until the analysis is completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12609000478213.