Ostomy Information on the Internet-Is It Good Enough?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine which internet search engines and keywords patients with ostomies utilize, to identify the common websites using these terms, to determine what aspects of information they wanted, and to perform a quality and readability assessment for these websites. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of persons with ostomies to identify search engines and terms, followed by a structured assessment of the quality and readability of the identified web pages. SUBJECT AND SETTINGS: The sample comprised 20 hospitalized patients with ostomies cared for on a colorectal surgical ward of a tertiary care hospital located in Melbourne, Australia. There were 15 (75%) adult males and 5 (25%) adult females; their mean age was 52.2 years. Participants were surveyed between August and December 2020. METHODS: Patients with newly formed ostomies were surveyed about which search engines and keywords they would use to look for information and for which questions regarding ostomies they wanted answers. In addition, 2 researchers then performed independent searches using the search terms identified by patient participants. These searches were conducted in August 2021, with the geographical location set to Australia. The quality of the websites was graded using the DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients, and Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool scoring assessments, and their readability was graded using the Flesch Reading Ease Score tool. RESULTS: Participants used Google as their primary search engine. Four keywords/phrases were identified: stoma for bowel surgery, ileostomy, colostomy, and caring for stoma. Multiple web pages were identified, 8 (21%) originated from Australia, 7 (18%) were from the United Kingdom, and 23 (61%) were from the United States. Most web pages lacked recent updates; only 18% had been undated within the last 12 months. The overall quality of the online information on ostomies was moderate with an average level of readability, deemed suitable for patient educational purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Information for persons living with an ostomy can be obtained from multiple web pages, and many sites have reasonable quality and are written at a suitable level. Unfortunately, these websites are rarely up-to-date and may contain advice that may not be applicable to individual patients.

Does implementation of and adherence to enhanced recovery after surgery improve perioperative nutritional management in colorectal cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is independently associated with poor outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery including increased complications and length of stay (LOS). The purpose of this study was to identify changes to perioperative nutritional management and surgical outcomes post implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. METHODS: Data on LOS and adherence to the ERAS protocol, including preoperative fasting time, nutritional assessment and supplementation was prospectively collected for the pre-ERAS group who underwent surgery for CRC between February and August 2019. The post-ERAS group involved a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent surgery between October 2019 and July 2020. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were included, (Pre-ERAS n = 42, Post-ERAS n = 88). A reduction in time to first solid intake by 1 day (P = 0.010), time to first bowel action (P = 0.007) and incidence of nausea (P < 0.001) was seen in the post-ERAS group. Provision of postoperative oral supplements increased from 33.3% to 70.5% (P < 0.001) in the post-ERAS group. Thirteen post-ERAS patients had a ≥ 70% adherence to the ERAS protocol and this subgroup had an associated reduction in LOS, 6.5 (4) days to 5 (3), P = 0.020. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the ERAS protocol improved perioperative patient care and outcomes. Early feeding was associated with reduced gastrointestinal symptoms without an increase in complications. Adherence to ERAS was associated with a reduction in LOS. Further research is required to evaluate the role of preoperative nutritional screening and intervention within an ERAS protocol.

The health-related quality of life changes following surgery in patients with colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is commonly treated with surgery and its success is frequently defined by cure rates. Impact on other aspects of health and wellbeing are less frequently considered in clinical practice. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a useful means of assessing such impacts. This study examines changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after surgical resection using PROMs. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study was undertaken in 49 adults receiving curative surgery for CRC. Participants completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) before surgery, and at 2 to 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-surgery. Linear mixed models were used to analyse FACT-C wellbeing and subscale scores. RESULTS: Patients reported a clinically important deterioration in functional and physical wellbeing 2 to 4 weeks post-surgery (both P < 0.05); differences at 6 months after surgery were trivial. Conversely, patients reported clinically important improvement in emotional wellbeing at 2 to 4 weeks post-surgery; this improvement was sustained at 3 and 6 months post-surgery (all P < 0.05). For social wellbeing and colorectal cancer-specific concerns, changes from before surgery at follow-up assessments were not statistically significant (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: While physical aspects of HRQoL are affected in the short term by CRC surgery, clinically significant improvement in emotional wellbeing are reported early (2 to 4 weeks post-surgery). Future research may help identify patients who are at greater risk of surgical impacts on health and wellbeing.

The association between sarcopenia and quality of life in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: an exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in health-related quality of life (QoL) from before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery to 1 and 3-month post-surgery in patients diagnosed pre-operatively as sarcopenic or non-sarcopenic by computed tomography (CT) analysis. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study with one pre-operative and two post-operative assessments. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected at each timepoint using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Pre-operative staging CT scans of the third lumbar vertebra (axial slice) were analysed using Slice-O-Matic Software to determine if patients had CT defined sarcopenia by employing sex-specific threshold values for skeletal muscle index. Patient-reported outcome measure scores were compared with minimal clinical important difference estimates to determine if changes were clinically significant. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 40 patients were found to be sarcopenic. The difference between sarcopenic groups on the EQ-5D was medium-sized and clinically significant, with the sarcopenic group reporting lower health status. The non-sarcopenic group displayed a clinically significant reduction in physical wellbeing post-operatively. The sarcopenic group did not demonstrate a clinically important reduction in physical wellbeing. For functional wellbeing, the sarcopenic group recorded a clinically significant reduction at the 1-month timepoint, trending back towards baseline by the 3-month timepoint. The non-sarcopenic group recorded almost no change in functional scores. CONCLUSION: This study explored the novel concept of the effect of sarcopenia on QoL in the CRC surgical setting. Clinically significant changes were identified at both post-operative timepoints. This highlights an important proof of concept that PROMs can detect meaningful clinical change in CRC patients in the context of sarcopenia and should be further explored.

Investigations and time trends in loop ileostomy reversals following anterior resections: a single Australian institution seven-years' experience.

BACKGROUND: Currently no consensus exists regarding what pre-reversal investigations are required to assess integrity of the rectal anastomosis. The objective of this study was to compare pre-reversal assessments of anastomotic integrity and to evaluate trends that might have influenced timings for reversal. METHODS: From a prospectively maintained database, patients with colorectal cancer resections between March 2012 and October 2019 were identified. Patient characteristics, pre-reversal contrast enema and flexible sigmoidoscopy findings were recorded, and management of complications were recorded. Time-to-ileostomy reversal and time series for trends were analysed. RESULTS: There were 154 patients included. Pre-reversal contrast enema or sigmoidoscopy detected a possible stricture or leak at the rectal anastomotic site in 11% (15/132) and 15% (18/112), respectively. When both modalities were used there was concordance of 86.1% and a positive likelihood ratio of 5.73. Of 125 (81.2%) ileostomies reversed, the median time-to-reversal was 11.99 months; time series analysis over the 7-year period showed no significant trend for average patient-days from booking to reversal (P = 0.60). Cox regression modelling did not identify any influential risk factors for the times taken to reversal. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of both contrast enema and flexible sigmoidoscopy in the assessment of rectal anastomosis integrity. Most patients with complications can have their ileostomies reversed. Patients who have adjuvant chemotherapy have a prolonged time to reversal.

Understanding patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer.

Quality of life has become increasingly regarded as a key outcome measurement for cancer patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent the tools used to ascertain self-reported quality of life. This review provides a summary of the literature regarding the use of PROMs in colorectal cancer and evaluates the advantages and limitations of generic and disease specific questionnaires that can be utilized in clinical practice. Factors that influence PROMs are outlined, including cancer characteristics, patient factors and treatment methods. Finally, future directions for the use of PROMs in colorectal cancer to inform healthcare delivery at an individual- and systems-based level are discussed.