Management of patients with incurable colorectal cancer: a retrospective audit.

AIM: Counselling patients and their relatives about non-curative management options in colorectal cancer is difficult because of a paucity of published data. This study aims to determine outcomes in patients unsuitable for curative surgery and the rates of subsequent surgical intervention. METHOD: This was an analysis of all colorectal cancers managed without curative surgery in a district general hospital from a prospectively maintained cancer registry between 2009 and 2016, as decided by a multidisciplinary team. Primary outcomes were overall survival and secondary outcomes were subsequent intervention rates and impact of tumour stage. RESULTS: In all, 183 patients out of 976 patients (18.8%) were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 81 years [interquartile range (IQR) 71-87 years]. Overall median survival from diagnosis was 205 days (IQR 60-532 days). One-year mortality was 62.3%. Patients were classified into two groups depending on the reason for a non-curable approach: patient-related (PR) or disease-related (DR). The difference in survival between PR (median 277 days, IQR 70-593) and DR (median 179 days, IQR 51-450) was 98 days (P = 0.023). Twenty-four patients were alive at the end of the study period; 19 out of 91 cases in PR (20.8%) and five out of 92 cases in DR (5.4%). Overall intervention rates were 11.9%, with higher rates in the DR group (P = 0.005). Disease stage was not associated with subsequent surgical intervention between the two groups (P = 0.392). CONCLUSION: Life expectancy for non-curatively managed patients within our unit was 6.8 months with one in nine patients requiring subsequent surgical admission for palliation. This information may be useful when counselling patients with incurable colorectal malignancy.

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective inguinal hernia repair in adults in London and south-east England: a cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding whether or not antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing post-operative surgical site infection in adult inguinal hernia repair is conflicting. A recent Cochrane review based on 17 randomised trials did not reach a conclusion on this subject. This study aimed to describe the current practice and determine whether clinical equipoise is prevalent. METHODS: Surgeons in training were recruited to administer the Survey of Hernia Antibiotic Prophylaxis usE survey to consultant-level general surgeons in London and the south-east of England on their practices and beliefs regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in adult elective inguinal hernia repair. Local prophylaxis guidelines for the participating hospital sites were also determined. RESULTS: The study was conducted at 34 different sites and received completed surveys from 229 out of a possible 245 surgeons, a 93 % response rate. Overall, a large majority of hospital guidelines (22/28) and surgeons' personal beliefs (192/229, 84 %) supported the use of single-dose pre-operative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in inguinal hernia repair, although there was considerable variation in the regimens in use. The most widely used regimen was intravenous co-amoxiclav (1.2 g). Less than half of surgeons were adherent to their own hospital antibiotic guidelines for this procedure, although many incorrectly believed that they were following these. CONCLUSION: In the south-east of England, there is a strong majority of surgical opinion in favour of the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in this procedure. It is therefore likely to be extremely difficult to conduct further randomised studies in the UK to support or refute the effectiveness of prophylaxis in this commonly performed procedure.

A prospective study of early removal of the urethral catheter after colorectal surgery in patients having epidural analgesia as part of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme.

AIM: Early removal of the urethral catheters is part of the enhanced postoperative recovery programme (ERAS). The effect of epidural anaesthesia on urinary retention was investigated in patients after colorectal resection. METHOD: A prospective cohort study of all patients having colorectal surgery within an ERAS programme that included insertion of an epidural catheter over the last 5 years. RESULTS: Two-hundred and ten patients had an epidural and a urethral catheter postoperatively. The duration of catheterization was not recorded in one patient who was therefore excluded from the study. One-hundred and eighteen patients had a trial without catheter (TWOC) prior to stopping the epidural (early TWOC). Ninety-one patients had TWOC after the epidural was stopped (late TWOC). Sixteen (7.6%) patients went into urinary retention (14 early TWOC and two late TWOC). The rate of urinary retention in the early TWOC group was significantly higher than that in the late TWOC group (11.9% vs 2.2%; χ(2), P = 0.009). Those who underwent a laparoscopic resection were significantly more likely to have undergone an early TWOC (χ(2), P = 0.001); however, there was no difference in retention rates between open and laparoscopic surgery (χ(2), P = 0.402). Pelvic surgery was not significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative urinary retention (χ(2), P = 0.627). Male sex was not significantly associated with urinary retention (χ(2), P = 0.087). In the early TWOC group 86% had the catheter removed within 24 hours of surgery. CONCLUSION: Early TWOC with epidural analgesia running significantly increases the risk of urinary retention; however, it was still successful in 88% of patients.