A Prospective, Observational Cost Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Appendicectomy in Three Tertiary Hospitals in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of laparoscopic appendicectomy are well recognized over open appendicectomy. However, laparoscopic procedures are not frequently conducted in many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) for several reasons, including perceived higher costs. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and cost of laparoscopic appendicectomy compared to open appendicectomy in Nigeria. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study among patients undergoing appendicectomy was conducted at three tertiary hospitals in Nigeria. Data were collected from October 2020 to February 2022 and analyses compared the average healthcare costs at 30 days after surgery. Quantile regression was conducted to identify variables that had an impact on the costs, reported in Nigerian Naira (Naira) and US dollars ($), with standard deviations (SD). FINDINGS: This study included 105 patients, of which 39 had laparoscopic appendicectomy and 66 had open appendicectomy. The average healthcare cost of laparoscopic appendicectomy (147,562 Naira (SD: 97,130) or $355 (SD: 234)) was higher than open appendicectomy (113,556 Naira (SD: 88,559) or $273 (SD: 213)). The average time for return to work was shorter with laparoscopic than open appendicectomy (mean: 8 days vs. 14 days). At the average daily income of $5.06, laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with 9778 Naira or $24 cost savings in return to work. Further, 5.1% of laparoscopic appendicectomy patients had surgical site infections compared to 22.7% for open appendicectomy. Regression analysis results showed that laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with $14 higher costs than open appendicectomy, albeit non-significant (p = 0.53). INTERPRETATION: Despite selection bias in this real-world study, laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with a slightly higher overall cost, a lower societal cost, a lower infection rate, and a faster return to work, compared to open appendicectomy. It is technically and financially feasible, and its provision in Nigeria should be expanded.

Identifying a Basket of Surgical Procedures to Standardize Global Surgical Metrics: An International Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define a globally applicable list of surgical procedures, or "basket," which could represent a health system's capacity to provide surgical care and standardize global surgical measurement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Six indicators have been proposed to assess access to safe, affordable, timely surgical and anesthesia care, with a focus on laparotomy, cesarean section, and treatment of open fracture. However, comparability, particularly for these procedures, has been limited by a lack of definitional clarity and their overly broad scope. METHODS: We conducted a 3 round international expert Delphi exercise between April and June 2019 using REDCap to identify a set of procedures representative of surgical capacity. To be included, procedures had to be important for treating common conditions, well-defined, and impactful (ie, well-recognized clinical or functional benefit). Procedures were eliminated or prioritized in each round, and those noted as "extremely" or "very important" by ≥50% of respondents in round 3 were included in the final "basket." RESULTS: Altogether 331 respondents from 78 countries participated in the Delphi process. A final basket of 32 procedures representing disease categories in trauma, cancer, congenital anomalies, maternal/reproductive health, aging, and infection were identified for inclusion to assess surgical capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical basket facilitates a more standardized assessment of a country's surgical system. Further testing and refinement will likely be needed, but this basket can be used immediately to guide ongoing monitoring and evaluation of global surgery capacities to improve and strengthen surgery and anesthesia care.

Identifying, Prioritizing and Visually Mapping Barriers to Injury Care in Rwanda: A Multi-disciplinary Stakeholder Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Whilst injuries are a major cause of disability and death worldwide, a large proportion of people in low- and middle-income countries lack timely access to injury care. Barriers to accessing care from the point of injury to return to function have not been delineated. METHODS: A two-day workshop was held in Kigali, Rwanda in May 2019 with representation from health providers, academia, and government. A four delays model (delays to seeking, reaching, receiving, and remaining in care) was applied to injury care. Participants identified barriers at each delay and graded, through consensus, their relative importance. Following an iterative voting process, the four highest priority barriers were identified. Based on workshop findings and a scoping review, a map was created to visually represent injury care access as a complex health-system problem. RESULTS: Initially, 42 barriers were identified by the 34 participants. 19 barriers across all four delays were assigned high priority; highest-priority barriers were "Training and retention of specialist staff", "Health education/awareness of injury severity", "Geographical coverage of referral trauma centres", and "Lack of protocol for bypass to referral centres". The literature review identified evidence relating to 14 of 19 high-priority barriers. Most barriers were mapped to more than one of the four delays, visually represented in a complex health-system map. CONCLUSION: Overcoming barriers to ensure access to quality injury care requires a multifaceted approach which considers the whole patient journey from injury to rehabilitation. Our results can guide researchers and policymakers planning future interventions.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major complication after esophagectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine identify risks factors for AL (preoperative, intra-operative, and post-operative factors) and assess the consequences to outcome on patients who developed an AL. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling and prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration CRD42018130732). This review identified 174 studies reporting outcomes of 74,226 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The overall pooled AL rates were 11%, ranging from 0 to 49% in individual studies. Majority of studies were from Asia (n = 79). In pooled analyses, 23 factors were associated with AL (17 preoperative and six intraoperative). AL were associated with adverse outcomes including pulmonary (OR: 4.54, CI95%: 2.99-6.89, P < 0.001) and cardiac complications (OR: 2.44, CI95%: 1.77-3.37, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (mean difference: 15 days, CI95%: 10-21 days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (OR: 5.91, CI95%: 1.41-24.79, P = 0.015). AL are a major complication following esophagectomy accounting for major morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis identified modifiable risk factors for AL, which can be a target for interventions to reduce AL rates. Furthermore, identification of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors will facilitate risk stratification and prediction of AL enabling better perioperative planning, patient counseling, and informed consent.

Challenges of one-year longitudinal follow-up of a prospective, observational cohort study using an anonymised database: recommendations for trainee research collaboratives.

BACKGROUND: Trainee research collaboratives (TRCs) have pioneered high quality, prospective 'snap-shot' surgical cohort studies in the UK. Outcomes After Kidney injury in Surgery (OAKS) was the first TRC cohort study to attempt to collect one-year follow-up data. The aims of this study were to evaluate one-year follow-up and data completion rates, and to identify factors associated with improved follow-up rates. METHODS: In this multicentre study, patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery were prospectively identified and followed up at one-year following surgery for six clinical outcomes. The primary outcome for this report was the follow-up rate for mortality at 1 year. The secondary outcome was the data completeness rate in those patients who were followed-up. An electronic survey was disseminated to investigators to identify strategies associated with improved follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 173 centres that collected baseline data, 126 centres registered to participate in one-year follow-up. Overall 62.3% (3482/5585) of patients were followed-up at 1 year; in centres registered to collect one-year outcomes, the follow-up rate was 82.6% (3482/4213). There were no differences in sex, comorbidity, operative urgency, or 7-day postoperative AKI rate between patients who were lost to follow-up and those who were successfully followed-up. In centres registered to collect one-year follow-up outcomes, overall data completeness was 83.1%, with 57.9% (73/126) of centres having ≥95% data completeness. Factors associated with increased likelihood of achieving ≥95% data completeness were total number of patients to be followed-up (77.4% in centres with < 15 patients, 59.0% with 15-29 patients, 51.4% with 30-59 patients, and 36.8% with > 60 patients, p = 0.030), and central versus local storage of patient identifiers (72.5% vs 48.0%, respectively, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: TRC methodology can be used to follow-up patients identified in prospective cohort studies at one-year. Follow-up rates are maximized by central storage of patient identifiers.

Differences in outcome between patients readmitted to index vs non-index hospital trusts after colorectal resection.

AIM: The clinical consequences of readmission following major surgery in the English National Health Service are unknown. This study aimed to determine differences in outcome between patients readmitted to index vs non-index trusts after major surgery. METHOD: Adult patients who underwent colorectal resection in England in April 2006 to March 2017 were identified in the national Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset. Patients were included if they were readmitted as emergencies within 30 days of initial discharge. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality within 90 days of readmission. Comparisons between patients readmitted to index vs non-index trusts were adjusted for confounders using multivariable logistic regression. Rectal resection patients were a planned subgroup. RESULTS: The readmission rate following colorectal resection was 15.1% (54 680/364 481), with 7.1% (3905/54 680) readmitted to a non-index trust. The 90-day mortality following readmission was 7.1% (3874/54 680) overall and 3.9% (652/16 736) in the rectal resection subgroup. The reoperation rate was 19.2% (10 498/54 680) overall and 23.1% (3859/16 736) after rectal resection. Mortality was significantly higher in non-index [10.9% (427/3905)] vs index trusts [6.8% (3447/507 75), adjusted OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.34-1.68, P < 0.001]. There was an annual average of 14.7 excess deaths in non-index trusts; only 1.9 of these followed surgical reoperation. In patients who underwent rectal resection, only 0.3 of the total 1.9 excess deaths each year in non-index trusts followed surgical reoperation. CONCLUSION: Despite a statistical difference, the absolute number of excess deaths attributable to readmission to a non-index trust is very low, particularly amongst patients requiring reoperation.

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.

Promoting research and audit at medical school: evaluating the educational impact of participation in a student-led national collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Medical students often struggle to engage in extra-curricular research and audit. The Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) network is a novel student-led, national research collaborative. Student collaborators contribute data to national, clinical studies while gaining an understanding of audit and research methodology and ethical principles. This study aimed to evaluate the educational impact of participation. METHODS: Participation in the national, clinical project was supported with training interventions, including an academic training day, an online e-learning module, weekly discussion forums and YouTube® educational videos. A non-mandatory, online questionnaire assessed collaborators' self-reported confidence in performing key academic skills and their perceptions of audit and research prior to and following participation. RESULTS: The group completed its first national clinical study ("STARSurgUK") with 273 student collaborators across 109 hospital centres. Ninety-seven paired pre- and post-study participation responses (35.5%) were received (male = 51.5%; median age = 23). Participation led to increased confidence in key academic domains including: communication with local research governance bodies (p < 0.001), approaching clinical staff to initiate local collaboration (p < 0.001), data collection in a clinical setting (p < 0.001) and presentation of scientific results (p < 0.013). Collaborators also reported an increased appreciation of research, audit and study design (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with the STARSurg network empowered students to participate in a national clinical study, which increased their confidence and appreciation of academic principles and skills. Encouraging active participation in collaborative, student-led, national studies offers a novel approach for delivering essential academic training.

Intraoperative cell salvage in a combat support hospital: a prospective proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: Provision of transfusion support is an important element of contemporary military operations, but presents a considerable logistic burden. Intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) offers the potential to reduce dependency on donated red blood cell (RBC) supply. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of IBS in an operational environment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A "salvage-only" IBS feasibility study was undertaken in a deployed, Anglo-American combat support hospital. All adult patients admitted with combat-related injuries likely to require more than 10 units of RBCs in 12 hours were included. The volume of salvaged blood available for reinfusion was collated with injury type. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were admitted having sustained combat-related injury. Twenty-nine fulfilled the criteria, of which 27 were identified on admission. Eighteen cases were selected for IBS and salvage was completed in 17. From these 17, the mechanism of injury was 24% gunshot wound (GSW) and 76% blast injury, and injury type was 47% body cavity and 53% extremity. A total of 5578g RBC mass was salvaged and prepared for reinfusion, representing 7.6% of total requirement. The proportion of RBC mass salvaged to that required was greatest in those with GSWs and cavity injuries, being 39% (673g/1733g) and 16% (243g/1497g), respectively. CONCLUSION: Salvage is most successful in patients with GSWs and cavity injuries and less appropriate for limb and blast injuries. However, the results of this study present more arguments against IBS than for it, and further research is needed to determine its safety in combat settings.

Causes and costs of a decade of litigation following emergency appendectomy in England.

BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in the delayed and nonoperative management of appendicitis. The present study assessed the causes and costs of litigation against surgeons following emergency appendectomy, with an emphasis on claims relating to preoperative management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the English NHS Litigation Authority for claims relevant to appendectomy between 2002 and 2011. Two authors independently extracted data and classified it against predetermined criteria. RESULTS: Successful litigation occurred in 66 % of closed cases (147/223) with a total payout of £8.1 million. There were 24 claims against organizational operating room delays (9 % of total) and 27 against delayed diagnosis (10 %), with respective success rates of 70 and 68 %. From 21 claims relating to damage to fertility, nine were due to either delayed diagnosis or organizational operating room delays. Misdiagnosis was the second most common cause for litigation (16 %), but it had the lowest likelihood of success (49 %). Faulty surgical technique was the most common reason for litigation (39 %), with a 70 % likelihood of success. Of eight claims related to fatality, one was due to unacceptable preoperative delay leading to preventable perforated appendicitis. The overall highest median payouts were for claims of damage to fertility (£52,384), operating list delays (£44,716), and delayed diagnosis (£42,292). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant medicolegal risks surrounding delays related to access to operating lists and diagnosis. Whereas future evidence regarding the safety of delayed appendectomy may provide scientific defense against these claims, the present study provides evidence of the current medicolegal risk to surgeons following delayed treatment of appendicitis.