RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide and is associated with a poor prognosis. Oesophagectomy remains the best prospect for a cure if diagnosed in the early disease stages. However, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is undertaken only after careful consideration. Appropriate patient selection, counselling and resource allocation is essential. Numerous risk models have been devised to guide surgeons in making these decisions. AIM: To evaluate which multivariate risk models, using intraoperative information with or without preoperative information, best predict perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was undertaken from 2000-2020. The search terms used were [(Oesophagectomy) AND (Model OR Predict OR Risk OR score) AND (Mortality OR morbidity OR complications OR outcomes OR anastomotic leak OR length of stay)]. Articles were included if they assessed multivariate based tools incorporating preoperative and intraoperative variables to forecast patient outcomes after oesophagectomy. Articles were excluded if they only required preoperative or any post-operative data. Studies appraising univariate risk predictors such as preoperative sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary fitness and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were also excluded. The review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses model. All captured risk models were appraised for clinical credibility, methodological quality, performance, validation and clinical effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty published studies were identified which examined eleven multivariate risk models. Eight of these combined preoperative and intraoperative data and the remaining three used only intraoperative values. Only two risk models were identified as promising in predicting mortality, namely the Portsmouth physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and POSSUM scores. A further two studies, the intraoperative factors and Esophagectomy surgical Apgar score based nomograms, adequately forecasted major morbidity. The latter two models are yet to have external validation and none have been tested for clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Despite the presence of some promising models in forecasting perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes, there is more research required to externally validate these models and demonstrate clinical benefit with the adoption of these models guiding postoperative care and allocating resources.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer is a frequently observed and lethal malignancy worldwide. Surgical resection remains a realistic option for curative intent in the early stages of the disease. However, the decision to undertake oesophagectomy is significant as it exposes the patient to a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, appropriate patient selection, counselling and resource allocation is important. Many tools have been developed to aid surgeons in appropriate decision-making. AIM: To examine all multivariate risk models that use preoperative and intraoperative information and establish which have the most clinical utility. METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was conducted from 2000-2020. The search terms applied were ((Oesophagectomy) AND (Risk OR predict OR model OR score) AND (Outcomes OR complications OR morbidity OR mortality OR length of stay OR anastomotic leak)). The applied inclusion criteria were articles assessing multivariate based tools using exclusively preoperatively available data to predict perioperative patient outcomes following oesophagectomy. The exclusion criteria were publications that described models requiring intra-operative or post-operative data and articles appraising only univariate predictors such as American Society of Anesthesiologists score, cardiopulmonary fitness or pre-operative sarcopenia. Articles that exclusively assessed distant outcomes such as long-term survival were excluded as were publications using cohorts mixed with other surgical procedures. The articles generated from each search were collated, processed and then reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All risk models were appraised for clinical credibility, methodological quality, performance, validation, and clinical effectiveness. RESULTS: The initial search of composite databases yielded 8715 articles which reduced to 5827 following the deduplication process. After title and abstract screening, 197 potentially relevant texts were retrieved for detailed review. Twenty-seven published studies were ultimately included which examined twenty-one multivariate risk models utilising exclusively preoperative data. Most models examined were clinically credible and were constructed with sound methodological quality, but model performance was often insufficient to prognosticate patient outcomes. Three risk models were identified as being promising in predicting perioperative mortality, including the National Quality Improvement Project surgical risk calculator, revised STS score and the Takeuchi model. Two studies predicted perioperative major morbidity, including the predicting postoperative complications score and prognostic nutritional index-multivariate models. Many of these models require external validation and demonstration of clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Whilst there are several promising models in predicting perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes, more research is needed to confirm their validity and demonstrate improved clinical outcomes with the adoption of these models.
RESUMO
Background: Rectal foreign bodies form a surprisingly frequent cause of presentation to the emergency department. The materials inserted constitute a wide range of size, shape, and texture with each presenting a unique set of challenges. Despite a seemingly innocuous presentation, if not recognised early and managed accordingly, significant complications can develop including obstruction, perforation, and sphincteric injury. The existing doctrines advocate endoscopic intervention after simple measures fail and advise against the use of laxative therapy due to concerns for complications that may arise. The authors of this study challenge this notion, provided certain conditions are met. Case Presentation. We report the case of a 14-year-old boy who inserted a golf ball into his rectum, which subsequently migrated proximally into the sigmoid colon on plain radiographic films. The patient was asymptomatic on presentation, and there was no clinical evidence of bowel injury or mechanical bowel obstruction. Endoscopic removal of the golf ball was pursued under general anaesthesia. Despite protracted efforts, the golf ball was not able to be retrieved endoscopically. In an attempt to avoid aggressive surgery, volume laxatives were administered with successful passage of the golf ball several hours later. Conclusions: This case discusses the unique technical challenges, which may be encountered when attempting to retrieve a large, spherical, and non-confirming foreign body entrapped above the rectosigmoid junction and how these factors can complicate endoscopic retrieval. The authors advocate that in the absence of a mechanical bowel obstruction, patients with foreign bodies possessing physical properties that are amenable to spontaneous passage, a trial of strong aperients, should be considered first line. The author's contention is that direct escalation to removal of foreign body in theatre can be resource draining and may expose the patient to additional risk.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with scleroderma often suffer from dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Partial fundoplication is a validated anti-reflux procedure for GERD but may worsen dysphagia in scleroderma patients. Its utility in these patients is unknown. Here, we evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of partial fundoplication for the treatment of medically refractory GERD in patients with scleroderma. METHODS: Analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent fundoplication across 14 hospitals between 1991 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes, reintervention rates, heartburn, dysphagia, and patient satisfaction were assessed at 3 months, 1- and 3-years post-surgery. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients with scleroderma were propensity score matched to 526 non-scleroderma controls. All underwent a partial fundoplication. Perioperative outcomes including complication rate, length of stay, and need for reoperation were similar between the two groups. Compared to baseline, both groups reported significantly improved heartburn at 3 months, 1- and 3-years following partial fundoplication. Surgery was equally effective at controlling heartburn across all follow-up timepoints in patients with or without scleroderma. Dysphagia to solids was more common in patients with scleroderma than controls at 3-months post-surgery, but was not significantly different to controls at 1- and 3-year follow-up. Satisfaction scores were high and comparable between both groups across all postoperative timepoints, with 100% of patients with scleroderma reporting that their initial choice to undergo surgery was correct. CONCLUSIONS: Partial fundoplication controls reflux and is associated with a transient period of dysphagia to solids in patients with scleroderma. This approach is safe, effective and acceptable for patients with scleroderma and medically refractory GERD.