Demographic factors associated with length of stay in hospital and histological diagnosis in adults undergoing appendicectomy.

Objectives: Appendicectomy remains of the most common emergency operations in the United Kingdom. The exact etiologies of appendicitis remain unclear with only potential causes suggested in the literature. Social deprivation and ethnicity have both been demonstrated to influence outcomes following many operations. There are currently no studies evaluating their roles with regards to severity and outcomes following appendicectomy. Material and Methods: Demographic data were retrieved from health records for adult patients who underwent appendicectomy between 2010-2016 within a single NHS trust. To measure social deprivation, Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) rankings were used. Histology reports were reviewed and diagnosis classified into predefined categories: non-inflamed appendix, uncomplicated appendicitis, complicated appendicitis and gangrenous appendicitis. Results: Three thousand four hundred and forty-four patients were identified. Mean age was 37.8 years (range 73 years). Using a generalized linear model, South Asian ethnicity specifically was found to be independently predictive of increased length of stay following appendicectomy (p <0.001). Amongst South Asian patients, social deprivation was found to be further predictive of longer hospital stay (p= 0.005). Deprivation was found to be a predictor of complicated appendicitis but not of gangrenous appendicitis (p= 0.01). Male gender and age were also independent predictors of positive histology for appendicitis (p <0.001 and p= 0.021 respectively). Conclusion: This study is the first to report an independent association between South Asian ethnicity and increased length of stay for patients undergoing appendicectomy in a single NHS trust. The associations reported in this study may be a result of differences in the pathophysiology of acute appendicitis or represent inequalities in healthcare provision across ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

Challenges and outcomes for bariatric surgery in patients with paraplegia: Case series and systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity contributes to a plethora of significant chronic diseases. Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be the most cost-effective treatment for severe obesity and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality from metabolic syndrome. Patients with paraplegia have significantly impaired mobility and are therefore at a much higher risk of developing severe obesity and its sequelae. Bariatric surgery may bring significant improvements to mobility, morbidity and quality of life for patients with paraplegia, but evidence in the literature is poor for this group of patients. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted conforming to PRISMA guidelines. The MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched for all articles published prior to April 2019 matching all of the keywords 'bariatric', 'paraplegia' and 'spinal cord'. Articles were assessed for relevance and full texts reviewed. In addition, clinical records were reviewed for three patients who underwent bariatric surgery at a single UK private institution. Non-identifiable demographic, clinical, operative and outcome data were obtained from electronic records. RESULTS: Twenty seven articles were retrieved from the initial database search, of which nine eligible full texts were reviewed. Eight articles were case reports or case series and the final article was a systematic review. All cases reported had positive outcomes with significant weight loss, improvement in mobility and increased quality of life. Outcomes from the three diversely aged patients in our case series were similarly positive, with no significant post-operative complications. DISCUSSION: Patients with obesity and paraplegia may significantly benefit from bariatric surgery. There is a need for multi-centre cohort studies to evaluate outcomes and the choice of bariatric intervention. UK guidelines do not include criteria based on mobility or neurological deficit, resulting in a potential missed opportunity to offer a cost-effective treatment that can significantly improve quality of life for patients with severe obesity and paraplegia.

Teaching leadership: the medical student society model.

BACKGROUND: All health care professionals in the UK are expected to have the medical leadership and management (MLM) skills necessary for improving patient care, as stipulated by the UK General Medical Council (GMC). CONTEXT: Newly graduated doctors reported insufficient knowledge about leadership and quality improvement skills, despite all UK medical schools reporting that MLM is taught within their curriculum. INNOVATION: A medical student society organised a series of extracurricular educational events focusing on leadership topics. The society recognised that the events needed to be useful and interesting to attract audiences. Therefore, clinical leaders in exciting fields were invited to talk about their experiences and case studies of personal leadership challenges. The emphasis on personal stories, from respected leaders, was a deliberate strategy to attract students and enhance learning. Evaluation data were collected from the audiences to improve the quality of the events and to support a business case for an intercalated degree in MLM. IMPLICATIONS: When leadership and management concepts are taught through personal stories, students find it interesting and are prepared to give up their leisure time to engage with the subject. Students appear to recognise the importance of MLM knowledge to their future careers, and are able to organise their own, and their peers', learning and development. Organising these events and collecting feedback can provide students with opportunities to practise leadership, management and quality improvement skills. These extracurricular events, delivered through a student society, allow for subjects to be discussed in more depth and can complement an already crowded undergraduate curriculum. Newly graduated doctors reported insufficient knowledge about leadership and quality improvement skills.

Influence of social deprivation on provision of bariatric surgery: 10-year comparative ecological study between two UK specialist centres.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of residential location and socioeconomic deprivation on the provision of bariatric surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional ecological study. SETTING: Patients resident local to one of two specialist bariatric units, in different regions of the UK, who received obesity surgery between 2003 and 2013. METHODS: Demographic data were collected from prospectively collected databases. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010) was used as a measure of socioeconomic status. Obesity prevalences were obtained from Public Health England (2006). Patients were split into three IMD tertiles (high, median, low) and also tertiles of time. A generalised linear model was generated for each time period to investigate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on the relationship between bariatric case count and prevalence of obesity. We used these to estimate surgical intervention provided in each population in each period at differing levels of deprivation. RESULTS: Data were included from 1163 bariatric cases (centre 1-414, centre 2-749). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to measure the associations between predictor and response variables. Associations were highly non-linear and changed over the 10-year study period. In general, the relationship between surgical case volume and obesity prevalence has weakened over time, with high volumes becoming less associated with prevalence of obesity. DISCUSSION: As bariatric services have matured, the associations between demand and supply factors have changed. Socioeconomic deprivation is not apparently a barrier to service provision more recently, but the positive relationships between obesity and surgical volume we would expect to find are absent. This suggests that interventions are not being taken up in the areas of need. We recommend a more detailed national analysis of the relationship between supply side and demand side factors in the provision of bariatric surgery.

Diaphragmatic herniation following esophagogastric resectional surgery: an increasing problem with minimally invasive techniques? : Post-operative diaphragmatic hernias.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative diaphragmatic hernias (PODHs) are serious complications following esophagectomy or total gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the incidence of PODHs at a high volume center over time and analyze the outcomes of patients who develop a PODH. METHODS: A prospective database of all resectional esophagogastric operations performed for cancer between January 2001 and December 2015 was analyzed. Patients diagnosed with PODH were identified and data extracted regarding demographics, details of initial resection, pathology, PODH symptoms, diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: Out of 631 patients who had hiatal dissection for malignancy, 35 patients developed of PODH (5.5 % overall incidence). Median age was 66 (range 23-87) years. The incidence of PODH in each operation type was: 2 % (4/221) following an open 2 or 3 stage esophagectomy, 10 % (22/212) following laparoscopic hybrid esophagectomy, 7 % (5/73) following MIO, and 3 % (4/125) following total gastrectomy. The majority of patients had colon or small bowel in a left-sided hernia. Of the 35 patients who developed a PODH, 20 (57 %) patients required emergency surgery, whereas 15 (43 %) had non-urgent repair. The majority of the patients had had suture repair (n = 24) or mesh repair (n = 7) of the diaphragmatic defect. Four patients were treated non-operatively. In hospital post-operative mortality was 20 % (4/20) in the emergency group and 0 % (0/15) in the elective group. Further hernia recurrence affected seven patients (n = 7/27, 26 %) and 4 of these patients (15 %) presented with multiple recurrences. CONCLUSION: PODH is a common complication following hybrid esophagectomy and MIO. Given the high mortality from emergency repair, careful thought is needed to identify surgical techniques to prevent PODH forming when minimal access esophagectomy are performed. Upper GI surgeons need to have a low index of suspicion to investigate and treat patients for this complication.

Underreporting of Secondary Endpoints in Randomized Trials: Cross-sectional, Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if underreporting of secondary endpoints in randomized controlled trials occurs, using surgical site infection (SSI) as an example. BACKGROUND: SSI is a commonly measured endpoint in surgical trials and can act as a proxy marker for primary and secondary endpoint assessments across trials in a range of medical specialties. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of randomized trials including patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery published in a representative selection of general medical and general surgical journals. Studies were included if SSI assessment was a prespecified endpoint. Adjusted binary logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a high rate of SSI detection (≥10%). RESULTS: From 216 trials including 45,633 patients, the pooled SSI rate was 7.7% (3519/45,633), which was significantly higher when assessed as a primary endpoint (12.6%, 1993/15,861, 49 studies) vs as a secondary endpoint (5.1%, 1526/29,772, 167 studies, P < 0.001). When assessed as a secondary outcome, standardized definitions and formal clinical reviews were used significantly less often. When adjusted for surgical contamination and methodological confounders, secondary assessment was associated with reduced SSI detection compared with primary assessment (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.69, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary endpoint assessment of SSI in randomized trials was associated with significantly reduced rigor and subsequent detection rates compared with assessment as a primary endpoint. Trial investigators should ensure that primary and secondary endpoint assessments are equally robust. PRISMA guidelines should be updated to promote the conduct of meta-analysis based only on primary outcomes from randomized controlled trials.