Reducing prolonged fasting for abdominal ultrasound scans.

This project aimed to address the issue of patients experiencing prolonged fasting periods before undergoing abdominal ultrasound scans in a busy surgical service at our hospital. A review of in-patient data revealed that 78% of patients were not following the recommended 6 hours fast before the scan. This led to poor patient experiences, prolonged diagnosis and management, and increased costs due to rescheduling of scans. To address this problem, a series of plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles were implemented to test different interventions aimed at improving staff awareness and compliance with fasting guidelines. The first PDSA cycle involved displaying a poster with fasting instructions in the doctors and nursing offices. This was followed by increasing awareness of guidelines during meetings and presenting the findings at a teaching session. Each PDSA cycle was followed by data collection to assess the impact of the intervention. The project resulted in an improvement in patient experiences, with 88% of patients being appropriately fasted by the end of the project. The study highlights the importance of using PDSA cycles to test and refine interventions and the positive impact of simple interventions on patient outcomes and clinical workflow.

Comparison of the colonic J-pouch versus straight (end-to-end) anastomosis following low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis following anterior resection. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus J-pouch anastomosis were included. Anastomotic complications, post-operative complications, re-operation, mortality, and functional outcomes were the evaluated outcome parameters. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies reporting a total number of 3293 patients who underwent straight anastomosis (n = 1581) or J-pouch (n = 1712) were included. Anastomotic leak and re-operation rates were significantly higher in the straight group compared to the J-pouch group [RD 0.03, P = 0.03] and [OR 1.87, P = 0.003], respectively. Stool frequency per 24 h at 6 months and 12 months was lower in the J-pouch group than the straight group [MD 2.13, P = 0.003] and [MD 1.44, P = 0.00001], respectively. In addition, the use of anti-diarrheal medication is lower at 12 months in the J-pouch group [MD 3.85, P = 0.03]. Moreover, the two groups showed comparable results regarding SSI, sepsis, paralytic ileus, anastomotic stricture formation, anastomotic bleeding, and mortality. CONCLUSION: J-pouch anastomosis showed lower risk for anastomotic leak and re-operation. Furthermore, better functional outcomes such as stool frequency were achieved using the colonic J-pouch reconstruction over the conventional straight end-to-end anastomosis.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in the elderly: systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in elderly patients. A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for both primary and metastatic malignant liver tumours in the elderly were included. Total operative time (minutes), need to perform Pringle's manoeuvre, blood loss (ml), the requirement for blood transfusion intra-operatively/post-operatively, post-operative complications, r0 resection rate, specimen resection margin (mm), re-operation rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and 90-day mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters. Twelve studies reporting a total number of 1762 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 831) or open (n = 931) hepatectomy were included. OH group was associated with a significantly higher overall number of post-operative complications compared to LH (P = 0.00001). Complications such as post-operative liver failure (P = 0.02), ascites formation (P = 0.002), surgical site infection (P = 0.02), blood loss (P = 0.03), blood transfusion rate (P = 0.05), and LOS (P = 0.00001) were significantly higher in the OH group when compared to LH. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of total operative time (P = 0.53), bile leak (P = 0.12), r0 resection rate (P = 0.36), re-operation (P = 0.70), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.11). Laparoscopic liver resections are safe with at least equal or superior peri-operative outcomes in the elderly population, although available data regards mainly the results of minor resections. Laparoscopic major resections in the elderly population should be carefully evaluated and preferably performed in expert centres.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: upgrading the level of evidence.

The need for escalation of level of evidence regarding the comparative outcomes of intracorporeal (ICA) and extracorporeal (ECA) anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has been persistently highlighted by previous meta-analyses of level 2 and 3 evidence. A systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Overall perioperative morbidity, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection (SSI), paralytic ileus, bleeding, postoperative pain within 5 days, length of incision, conversion to an open procedure, harvested lymph nodes, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Four randomised controlled trials reporting a total of 399 patients evaluating outcomes of ICA (n = 199) and ECA (n = 200) in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy were included. The ICA was associated with significantly shorter length of incision (MD - 1.82, p < 0.00001), lower postoperative pain score on day 2 (MD - 0.69, p = 0.0007), day 3 (MD - 0.80, p = 0.02), day 4 (MD - 0.83, p = 0.01) and day 5 (MD - 0.49, p < 0.00001) when compared to ECA. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference in overall perioperative morbidity (RR 0.79, p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (RR 1.29, p = 0.65), SSI (RR 0.61, p = 0.42), bleeding (RR 0.70, p = 0.71), paralytic ileus (RR 0.60, p = 0.45), conversion to open (RD: - 0.02, p = 0.45), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.82, p = 0.06), and procedure time (MD 16.04, p = 0.06) between two groups. The meta-analysis of level 1 evidence demonstrated that laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA has comparable perioperative morbidity but better postoperative recovery than with ECA. The ICA is safe to be practiced more routinely where technical challenges allow.

Meta-analysis of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection: the dilemma remains.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection. METHODS: We systematic searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register and bibliographic reference lists. Overall perioperative complications, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, ileus and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 4 studies reporting a total of 436 patients comparing outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during (n = 185) or after (n = 251) adjuvant chemotherapy following colorectal cancer resection. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.82-2.36, p = 0.22), anastomotic leak (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.47-16.56, p = 0.26), surgical site infection (OR 1.97; 95% CI 0.80-4.90, p = 0.14), ileus (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.50-2.96, p = 0.66) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.02; 95% CI - 0.85-0.89, p = 0.97) between two groups. Between-study heterogeneity was low in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis of the best, albeit limited, available evidence suggests that temporary loop ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection may be associated with comparable outcomes to the closure of ileostomy after adjuvant chemotherapy. We encourage future research to concentrate on the completeness of chemotherapy and quality of life which can determine the appropriateness of either approach.

Meta-analysis of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate comparative outcomes of medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, procedure time, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open procedure, and number of harvested lymph nodes were the outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified eight comparative studies reporting a total of 1477 patients evaluating outcomes of medial-to-lateral (n = 626) and lateral-to-medial (n = 851) approaches in laparoscopic colorectal resection. The medial-to-lateral approach was associated with significantly lower rate of conversion to open (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, P = 0.001), shorter procedure time (mean difference (MD) - 32.25, P = 0.003) and length of hospital stay (MD - 1.54, P = 0.02) compared to the lateral-to-medial approach. However, there was no significant difference in mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.00, P = 0.96), overall complications (OR 0.78, P = 0.11), wound infection (OR 0.84, P = 0.60), anastomotic leak (OR 0.70, P = 0.26), bleeding (OR 0.60, P = 0.50), and number of harvested lymph nodes (MD - 1.54, P = 0.02) between two groups. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that the lateral-to-medial approach may harvest more lymph nodes in left-sided colectomy (MD - 1.29, P = 0.0009). The sensitivity analysis showed that overall complications were lower in the medial-to-lateral group (OR 0.72, P = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis (level 2 evidence) showed that medial-to-lateral approach during laparoscopic colorectal resection may reduce procedure time, length of hospital stay and conversion to open procedure rate. Moreover, it may probably reduce overall perioperative morbidity. However, both approaches carry similar risk of mortality, and have comparable ability to harvest lymph nodes. Future high-quality randomised trials are required.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Versus Transductal Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic transcystic (TC) and transductal (TD) common bile duct (CBD) exploration. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists. CBD clearance rate, perioperative complications, and biliary complications were defined as the primary outcome parameters. Procedure time, length of hospital stay, conversion to open procedure were the secondary outcomes. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies reporting a total of 4073 patients comparing outcomes of laparoscopic TC (n = 2176) and TD (N = 1897) CBD exploration. The TC approach was associated with significantly lower overall complications (RD: -0.07, P = 0.001), biliary complications (RD: -0.05, P = 0.0003), and blood loss (MD: -16.20, P = 0.02) compared to TD approach. Moreover, the TC approach significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD: -2.62, P < 0.00001) and procedure time (MD: -12.73, P = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference in rate of CBD clearance (RD: 0.00, P = 0.77) and conversion to open procedure (RD: 0.00, P = 0.86) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic TC CBD exploration is safe and reduces overall morbidity and biliary complications compared to the TD approach. Moreover, it is associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay and procedure time. High-quality randomised trials may provide stronger evidence with respect to impact of the cystic duct/CBD diameter, number or size of CBD stones, or cystic duct anatomy on the comparative outcomes of TC and TD approaches.

Quality assessment of decision-making in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary meetings.

PURPOSE: The quality of decision-making in the colorectal multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can significantly affect the quality of care delivered to patients with colorectal cancer. We performed a prospective study to assess the quality of the MDT meetings in a specialized colorectal unit using an externally observational validated tool. METHODS: An externally validated observational tool, the Colorectal Multidisciplinary Team Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (cMDT-MODe), was used to assess the quality of clinical decision-making in 64 cases. RESULTS: Although case history information presented by the responsible surgeon was rated high (4.4/5), the quality of radiological and histopathological information regarding each patient's case which was available at the time was less adequate, scoring 3.9/5 and 3.8/5, respectively. Moreover, the precise knowledge of patients' personal views and circumstances was a field requiring further improvement. In a general overview however, the quality and extent of the available information enabled the MDT to provide a clear recommendation regarding the patients' treatment plans in 87.5% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The cMDT-MODe tool can be used to prospectively audit the quality of clinical decision-making in the colorectal MDT meetings and highlight the fields of potential improvement.