Timely Review and Communication of Histopathology Reports Following Appendicectomy: Insights from a Two-Cycle Clinical Audit.

INTRODUCTION: Appendicectomy is the most frequent emergency general surgical procedure. Prior research highlights the importance of histopathology analysis after appendicectomy which is the practice in many countries including the United Kingdom (UK), aiming to prevent any oversight of vital findings and the avoidance of potential delays in patient care. Our primary objective was to audit the extent to which surgeons adhere to the NHS England patient safety guidelines from 2016 when it comes to timely reviewing and effectively communicating histopathology results to patients and/or their general practitioners following appendicectomy procedures. Our secondary objective was to amend practice, if deemed necessary, following the implementation of agreed-upon protocols, with the expected improvements being observable in the second cycle of the audit. METHODS: In our two-cycle audit, we performed a retrospective analysis using online patient records from a single centre in the UK. The initial cycle involved cases of emergency appendectomies carried out consecutively for suspected appendicitis from April 2018 to June 2019. Following the clinical governance meeting and the implementation of recommendations, the second audit cycle covered cases between September 2020 and October 2020. RESULTS: In the first cycle, among 418 laparoscopic appendectomies, 207 (49.52%) and 47 reports (11.24%) were reviewed within a 15-day and a 16-30-day window, respectively, following the online availability of histopathology results. Notably, 116 reports (27.75%) remained unreviewed by surgeons, and only 67 (16.02%) of these reports documented communication with patients and/or their general practitioners. In the second cycle, involving 49 patients, 38 reports (77.55%) were reviewed within the first 15 days, and 10 reports (20.4%) were reviewed between 16-30 days. Among these, 16 reports (32.65%) documented communication with patients and/or their general practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Our adherence to the aforementioned guidance was poor prior to this audit. This two-cycle audit highlighted the need for improvement in the timely review and communication of histopathology reports following appendectomy at our centre. The second cycle showed promising progress, suggesting that changes implemented between the cycles had a positive impact. Nevertheless, continuous efforts may be required to enhance and sustain adherence to these vital patient safety guidelines.

Through Different Lenses: A Retrospective Analysis of the Agreement Between Laparoscopic and Histopathological Evaluations of the Appendix.

BACKGROUND: Appendicectomy is the most frequently performed emergency general surgical procedure. Previous research has highlighted discrepancies between initial intraoperative laparoscopic diagnoses and subsequent histopathology reports following appendicectomy. In the United Kingdom (UK), routine histopathological examination is the established practice, ensuring precise diagnosis of appendiceal specimens. This retrospective analysis aims to compare intraoperative laparoscopic assessments of the appendix with corresponding histopathology findings. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 418 consecutive emergency laparoscopic appendectomies at Peterborough City Hospital in the UK between April 2018 and June 2019 for suspected appendicitis. Intraoperative findings were compared with histopathological examination outcomes using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of the 418 appendectomies analysed, we found a substantial agreement between surgeons and pathologists (kappa = 0.71, P < 0.001) in detecting overall abnormalities of appendices. This agreement was also high for detecting inflamed appendices (kappa = 0.72, P < 0.001). However, of the six neoplastic lesions confirmed in the pathologists' final report, only two were suspected during laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: While laparoscopic assessments of the appendix demonstrate a statistically significant and improved agreement with histopathological findings in detecting abnormal and inflamed appendices, the ability of surgeons to identify neoplasia appears suboptimal based on our small sample of neoplasia cases. The data strongly support the continued practice of routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy due to its crucial role in avoiding missed diagnoses and ensuring better patient outcomes.

Unchanged Faces of Acute Appendicitis: Exploring Presentation and Treatment Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the implementation of novel guidelines for managing appendicitis, prompting an evaluation of its effects on patient presentation and treatment at a district general hospital. Healthcare facilities worldwide have adapted protocols to meet the unique challenges of the pandemic, ensuring safe and efficient care. Our study assesses the pandemic's influence on patient demographics, clinical outcomes, surgical procedures, and adherence to guidelines among individuals undergoing emergency appendicitis surgery. Through this investigation, we aimed to determine whether significant deviations occurred in managing acute appendicitis amidst the pandemic. Methodology Consecutive adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with acute appendicitis were included in two cohorts for this retrospective analysis, comparing cases treated during the COVID-19 pandemic period (April to September 2020) with those treated one year prior. All patients underwent standardized assessments upon emergency department admission, including imaging studies and COVID-19 testing. Demographics, laboratory results, surgical details, and outcomes were compared between the pre- and post-pandemic groups, focusing on their overall management. Results The research involved a total of 172 individuals. During the pandemic (April to September 2020), 91 of these participants underwent surgery, which is more than the 81 individuals who had surgery during the same period the previous year (April to September 2019). Preoperative C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in the pandemic group (P = 0.0455). The time from admission to surgery was shorter in the pandemic group (7.5 ± 4.6 vs. 5.8 ± 4.9; P = 0.0155). The overall operative and laparoscopic operative times were longer in the pandemic group (65 vs. 71 minutes, P = 0.391, and 55 vs. 62 minutes, P = 0.1424, respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The number of patients presenting with complicated appendicitis was significantly higher in the pandemic group than in the nonpandemic group (44.4% vs. 61.4%; P = 0.034). The length of stay was shorter in the pandemic group (P = 0.53). Conclusions Our study suggests that surgery for acute appendicitis remains safe and feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, with comparable outcomes. However, we noted an increase in the number of patients presenting with complicated appendicitis, possibly influenced by national pandemic guidelines in the United Kingdom. Despite this trend, our findings affirm the continued effectiveness of surgical management for acute appendicitis during the pandemic, highlighting the adaptability of healthcare systems in addressing emergent medical needs under challenging circumstances.

The relationships between body composition and the systemic inflammatory response in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss is recognised as a marker of poor prognosis in patients with cancer but the aetiology of cancer cachexia remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationships between CT measured parameters of body composition and the systemic inflammatory response in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer. PATIENT AND METHODS: 174 patients with primary operable colorectal cancer who underwent resection with curative intent (2003-2010). Image analysis of CT scans was used to measure total fat index (cm(2)/m(2)), subcutaneous fat index (cm(2)/m(2)), visceral fat index (cm(2)/m(2)) and skeletal muscle index (cm(2)/m(2)). Systemic inflammatory response was measured by serum white cell count (WCC), neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS). RESULTS: There were no relationships between any parameter of body composition and serum WCC or NLR. There was a significant relationship between low skeletal muscle index and an elevated systemic inflammatory response, as measured by the mGPS (p = 0.001). This was confirmed by linear relationships between skeletal muscle index and both C-reactive protein (r = -0.21, p = 0.005) and albumin (r = 0.31, p<0.001). There was no association between skeletal muscle index and tumour stage. CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights a direct relationship between low levels of skeletal muscle and the presence of a systemic inflammatory response in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer.