Delivery of drinking, eating and mobilising (DrEaMing) and its association with length of hospital stay after major noncardiac surgery: observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways are associated with improved postoperative outcomes. However, as enhanced recovery pathways have become more complex and varied, compliance has reduced. The 'DrEaMing' bundle re-prioritises early postoperative delivery of drinking, eating, and mobilising. We investigated relationships between DrEaMing compliance, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in a prospective multicentre major surgical cohort. METHODS: We interrogated the UK Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme dataset. Analyses were conducted in four stages. In an exploratory cohort, we identified independent predictors of DrEaMing. We quantified the association between delivery of DrEaMing (and its component variables) and prolonged LOS in a homogenous colorectal subgroup and assessed generalisability in multispecialty patients. Finally, LOS and complications were compared across hospitals, stratified by DrEaMing compliance. RESULTS: The exploratory cohort comprised 22 218 records, the colorectal subgroup 7230, and the multispecialty subgroup 5713. DrEaMing compliance was 59% (13 112 patients), 60% (4341 patients), and 60% (3421), respectively, but varied substantially between hospitals. Delivery of DrEaMing predicted reduced odds of prolonged LOS in colorectal (odds ratio 0.51 [0.43-0.59], P<0.001) and multispecialty cohorts (odds ratio 0.47 [0.41-0.53], P<0.001). At the hospital level, complications were not the primary determinant of LOS after colorectal surgery, but consistent delivery of DrEaMing was associated with significantly shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of bundled and unbundled DrEaMing was associated with substantial reductions in postoperative LOS, independent of the effects of confounder variables. Consistency of process delivery, and not complications, predicted shorter hospital-level length of stay. DrEaMing may be adopted by perioperative health systems as a quality metric to support improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital length of stay.

Predicting the difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy: development and validation of a pre-operative risk score using an objective operative difficulty grading system.

BACKGROUND: The prediction of a difficult cholecystectomy has traditionally been based on certain pre-operative clinical and imaging factors. Most of the previous literature reported small patient cohorts and have not used an objective measure of operative difficulty. The aim of this study was to develop a pre-operative score to predict difficult cholecystectomy, as defined by a validated intra-operative difficulty grading scale. METHOD: Two cohorts from prospectively maintained databases of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were analysed: the CholeS Study (8755 patients) and a single surgeon series (4089 patients). Factors potentially predictive of difficulty were correlated to the Nassar intra-operative difficulty scale. A multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was then used to identify factors that were independently associated with difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy, defined as operative difficulty grades 3 to 5. The resulting model was then converted to a risk score, and validated on both internal and external datasets. RESULT: Increasing age and ASA classification, male gender, diagnosis of CBD stone or cholecystitis, thick-walled gallbladders, CBD dilation, use of pre-operative ERCP and non-elective operations were found to be significant independent predictors of difficult cases. A risk score based on these factors returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.789 (95% CI 0.773-0.806, p < 0.001) on external validation, with 11.0% versus 80.0% of patients classified as low versus high risk having difficult surgeries. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a pre-operative scoring system that uses easily available pre-operative variables to predict difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This scoring system should assist in patient selection for day case surgery, optimising pre-operative surgical planning (e.g. allocation of the procedure to a suitably trained surgeon) and counselling patients during the consent process. The score could also be used to risk adjust outcomes in future research.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery.

BACKGROUND: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. RESULTS: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

Correction to: Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The list of the CholeS management group, Collaborators and Data Validators were omitted from the Acknowledgments.

Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise description of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. METHODS: Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall's tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere-Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. RESULTS: A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respectively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty.

Preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a validated risk score derived from a prospective U.K. database of 8820 patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is commonly performed, and several factors increase the risk of open conversion, prolonging operating time and hospital stay. Preoperative stratification would improve consent, scheduling and identify appropriate training cases. The aim of this study was to develop a validated risk score for conversion for use in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Preoperative patient and disease-related variables were identified from a prospective cholecystectomy database (CholeS) of 8820 patients, divided into main and validation sets. Preoperative predictors of conversion were identified by multivariable binary logistic regression. A risk score was developed and validated using a forward stepwise approach. RESULTS: Some 297 procedures (3.4%) were converted. The risk score was derived from six significant predictors: age (p = 0.005), sex (p < 0.001), indication for surgery (p < 0.001), ASA (p < 0.001), thick-walled gallbladder (p = 0.040) and CBD diameter (p = 0.004). Testing the score on the validation set yielded an AUROC = 0.766 (p < 0.001), and a score >6 identified patients at high risk of conversion (7.1% vs. 1.2%). CONCLUSION: This validated risk score allows preoperative identification of patients at six-fold increased risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy.

The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.

Randomised controlled trial to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of expectant management versus preoperative imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones (The Sunflower Study): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10378861.

Protocol for LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resectional Surgery (LASORS): multicentre validation cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the primary curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, with considerable recent improvements in long-term survival. However, surgery has a long-lasting impact on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Through a multicentre European study, our research group was able to identify key symptoms that affect patient's HRQOL. These symptoms were combined to produce a tool to identify poor HRQOL following oesophagectomy (LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resection (LASOR) tool). The objective of this multicentre study is to validate a six-symptom clinical tool to identify patients with poor HRQOL for use in everyday clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Included patients will: (1) be aged 18 years or older, (2) have undergone an oesophagectomy for cancer between 2015 and 2019, and (3) be at least 12 months after the completion of adjuvant oncological treatments. Patients will be given the previously created LASOR questionnaire. Each symptom from the LASOR questionnaire will be graded according to impact on quality of life and frequency of the symptom, with a composite score from 0 to 5. The previously developed LASOR symptom tool will be validated against HRQOL as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30 and OG25. SAMPLE SIZE: With a predicted prevalence of poor HRQOL of 45%, based on the previously generated LASOR clinical symptom tool, to validate this tool with a sensitivity and specificity of 80%, respectively, a minimum of 640 patients will need to be recruited to the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS Health Research Authority (North East-York Research Ethics Committee) approval was gained 8 November 2019 (REC reference 19/NE/0352). Multiple platforms will be used for the dissemination of the research data, including international clinical and patient group presentations and publication of research outputs in a high impact clinical journal.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

Excellent outcome of Aspergillous endophthalmitis in a case of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis.

While invasive aspergillosis occurs typically in severely immunocompromised patients, cases of surgical site infections have been reported in immunocompetent individuals. The purpose is to report an eye with post-operative Aspergillus endophthalmitis, which achieved a good visual outcome following early and aggressive treatment. A young patient, known case of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis presented to us with post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis. He was treated with pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal voriconazole and systemic itraconazole. The patient regained a vision of 20/30 with follow up of 2 years.

Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine and lignocaine with ropivacaine, lignocaine and clonidine combination during peribulbar anaesthesia for phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Peribulbar block is the most common type of local anaesthesia administered for cataract surgery, and continuous efforts are on to find a long-acting local anaesthetic (LA) drug with the safest pharmacological profile. OBJECTIVES: A double-blind, prospective and randomized study was carried out in our institute to compare the anaesthetic effects of ropivacaine with the combination of ropivacaine and clonidine in administration of peribulbar block for phacoemulsification cataract surgery. METHODS: A total of 200 patients of both sexes aged 50-80 years of American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I and II, scheduled for phacoemulsification cataract surgery under monitored anaesthesia care, were enrolled for the study. Patients were assigned into two groups of 100 each; ropivacaine group (R) and ropivacaine clonidine group (RC). Group R received 10 mL of LA solution containing 5 mL of 2% lignocaine, 5 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine and 100 units of hyaluronidase while group RC received 8 mL of a similar mixture with the addition of clonidine 1 µg/kg and saline to make a total volume of 10 mL. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulse oximetry (SpO(2)), respiratory rate (RR), intraocular pressure (IOP), eye muscle movement scores and quality of peribulbar block were observed and recorded throughout the study period at regular intervals. At the end of the research project, the data was compiled systematically and was subjected to statistical analysis using the ANOVA test with post hoc significance for continuous variables and Chi-square test for qualitative data. Value of P<0.05 was considered significant and P<0.0001 as highly significant. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics, SpO(2) and RR were comparable in both the groups. Mean HR and MAP were also comparable after a significant variation in the first 2-3 min (P<0.05). Onset and establishment of sensory and motor blocks were significantly earlier in the RC group (P<0.05). IOP decreased significantly during the first 6-7 min in the RC group after the administration of the peribulbar block. Duration of analgesia was prolonged in the RC group (6.5±2.1 h) as compared with the R group (4.2±1.8 h). The side-effect profile revealed a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, headache and dizziness in Group R, while a considerably higher incidence of dry mouth was observed in Group RC. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of clonidine to ropivacaine not only decreases the total volume of LA to be used but also augments early onset and prolonged offset of sensory analgesia as well as provides smooth operating conditions with a good sedation level as well by providing a wider safety margin of LA.