Adapting the investigation of patients on urgent suspected cancer pathway with lower gastrointestinal symptoms across Wales during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the introduction of revised diagnostic pathways for assessing urgent suspected cancer (USC) referrals. Combinations of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and minimal preparation computed tomography (CT) scans (MPCT) were used to manage referrals and prioritise access to clinical services or invasive tests. The effectiveness of these pathways across Wales is evaluated in this study. METHODS: All consecutive patients referred from primary care on the USC pathway between 15 March and 15 June 2020 were included to reflect the effect of full lockdown measures. Data collected included demographics, presenting symptom(s), investigations and timelines and patient outcomes up to 90 days following initial referral. RESULTS: A total of 1,050 patients across eight sites in Wales were included. Of these 1,050 patients, 52.6% were female with median age 68 (21-97) years; 50.5% had first-line clinical review, of which 61.1% were virtual consultations; 49.5% had primary investigations; 26.7% of patients had FIT and 13.1% had MPCT. COVID-response pathways achieved a 29.9% reduction in use of colonoscopy as first-line investigation and 79% of patients avoided face-to-face consultations altogether during this first wave of the pandemic. Overall, 6.8% of USC referrals were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Median timescale from diagnosis to treatment for CRC was 65 (4-175) days. The negative predictive value (NPV) for FIT in this cohort was 99.6%. MPCT as the first modality had a NPV of 99.2%. CONCLUSION: A modified investigation pathway helped maintain cancer diagnosis rates during the pandemic with improved resource utilisation to that used prepandemic.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) - Abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome. DISCUSSION: A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 25616490 . Registered on 1 January 2012.

Does an enhanced recovery programme add value to laparoscopic colorectal resections?

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery programmes (ERP) are now becoming integral to the management of patients undergoing colorectal resection. The benefits of ERP in patients undergoing open colorectal resections have been well recognized; however, the value of ERP in patients undergoing laparoscopic resections is still uncertain. This study was undertaken to assess the impact of ERP in our unit where nearly 90 % of elective colorectal resections are performed laparoscopically. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing colorectal resections between Jan 2008 to December 2012 was analysed. The ERP programme was introduced in Aug 2010. The primary outcome measure was post-operative length of stay. Secondary outcome measures were post-operative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients underwent major colorectal resections in the study period (282 patients since introduction of ERP). There were no demographic differences between the pre-ERP and post-ERP groups of patients. The median length of stay prior to the introduction of ERP was 6 days (right-sided resections = 6, left-sided resections = 7.5 and rectal resections = 5.5). For post-ERP, the median length of stay was 5 days (right = 5.5, left = 5 and rectal = 4). Patients who had their laparoscopic procedure converted to open had a course similar to open resections. The morbidity and mortality was lesser in the ERP group but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The introduction of an ERP adds additional value in laparoscopic colorectal resections, with further reductions in morbidity and length of stay.

Long-term outcome of prucalopride for chronic constipation: a single-centre study.

AIM: Newer 5-hydroxytryptamine agonists, such as prucalopride, have been demonstrated to be effective in the short term for treatment of chronic constipation. To date, few studies have investigated their medium- and long-term effectiveness. METHOD: An analysis was carried out of a prospectively maintained database of all patients started on prucalopride for chronic constipation between April 2011 and April 2014. Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) questionnaires were administered before starting treatment with prucalopride and at the first follow-up visit to assess change in CCCS scores in 50 randomly selected patients. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients (median age: 47 years; seven men) were started on prucalopride in this period. Of these, 16 (10%) had slow-transit constipation, 31 (20%) had obstructive defaecation syndrome and 30 (19%) had a combination of both. Of these 155 patients, 78% patients were on three or more laxatives at the time of starting prucalopride. Patients were started on 1 mg or 2 mg according to their age. The median follow-up period was 24 (range: 4-40) months. At the first follow-up visit, 106 (68%) patients reported good symptomatic improvement, whereas the remainder had no response. Third of initial responders showed decreased efficacy after a median duration of 6 months and needed regular laxatives/irrigation. Of the 50 patients who filled in the CCCS questionnaires (15 patients were nonresponders), 32 (64%) reported improved scores with a median improvement of two points per criterion. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that prolonged use of prucalopride is effective in achieving a sustained benefit in the majority of patients.