The impact of surgical subspecialization on patient outcomes following emergency colorectal resections in the north of England: a retrospective cohort study.

AIM: Emergency colorectal surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Most general surgeons have a subspecialty, which forms the focus of their elective work, allowing development of specialist skill sets. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of consultant subspecialization on patient outcomes following emergency colorectal resections. METHODS: Data were requested for all emergency admissions under a general surgeon between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2016 within the north of England. These were acquired from individual Trusts following Caldicott approval. Data included demographics, diagnoses and any procedures undertaken. Patients were assigned to cohorts based on the subspecialist interest of the consultant they were under the care of. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day postoperative mortality. Categorical data were compared with the chi-squared test, and continuous data with the t test or ANOVA. A logistic regression model determined factors associated with 30-day in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7648 emergency colorectal resections were performed with a 30-day postoperative mortality of 13.8%. This was significantly lower if the responsible consultant was a colorectal surgeon compared with other general surgery subspecialties (11.8% vs. 15.2%, P < 0.001). This was significant on univariate analysis (OR 0.75, P < 0.001); however, following multivariable adjustment, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.380). The colorectal specialists had a higher laparoscopy rate than their colleagues-9.8% versus 6.8% (P < 0.001). Stoma rates were also lower (46.9% vs. 51.0%, P = 0.001) and anastomosis rates higher (55.9% vs. 49.3%, P < 0.001) amongst colorectal surgeons. CONCLUSION: These findings add to the growing body of evidence that patient outcomes may be improved by involving subspecialists in colorectal emergencies.

A 15-year retrospective analysis of the epidemiology and outcomes for elderly emergency general surgical admissions in the North East of England: A case for multidisciplinary geriatric input.

INTRODUCTION: Life expectancies in the UK are increasing and with this there is an increasing elderly population with more complex co-morbidity. Emergency surgery in the elderly is challenging in terms of decision making, managing co-morbidity and post-operative rehabilitation with high morbidity and mortality. To optimise service design and development, it is important to understand the changing pattern of emergency surgical care for this group. METHODS: After obtaining necessary approvals, we approached each hospital trust in the North of England for details of every emergency admission under a general surgeon from 2000 to 2014. Data for each admission included demographics, co-morbidities, diagnoses, procedures undertaken and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 105 002 elderly (≥70 years) emergency general surgical admissions, and mean age and co-morbidity (defined by Charlson index scores) increased (both p < 0.001). Operative intervention was undertaken in a similar proportion of patients in all age groups (13%), with more patients undergoing operations over time (p < 0.001), of which 50% were within 48 h of admission. Overall in-hospital mortality decreased significantly as did length of hospital stay (both p < 0.001). Factors associated with increased 30 day in-hospital mortality were increasing age and Charlson score, admissions directly from clinic, operations undertaken at the weekend and patients admitted earlier in the study period. CONCLUSION: The workload of emergency general surgery in the elderly is becoming more complex. This challenge is already being addressed with improvements in outcomes. The data presented here reinforces the need for new models of care with increased multidisciplinary geriatric care input into elderly surgical patient care in the perioperative period.

Longterm -ostomy as a quality marker: Comparison of outcomes from a six year series of laparoscopic surgery in MRI defined low rectal cancer.

AIM: We propose long-term -ostomy rate following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection must be included as an overall quality indicator of treatment in conjunction with frequently reported and readily available end points. METHOD: A database was collated prospectively of consecutive rectal cancer resections over a 6-year period. Recorded data included pre-operative MRI (tumour stage and height from the anal-verge), as well as demographics, treatment, local recurrence rate, survival and -ostomy rate as the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: 65 patients were identified and classified as low-rectal cancer if the tumour on MRI was < 6 cm from the anal verge or middle/upper-rectal cancer if between 6 and 15 cm from the anal-verge and below the peritoneal reflection. Permanent stoma rates including colostomies and non-reversed ileostomies were 31.7% for middle/upper rectal cancer; 62.5% for low-rectal cancer and an overall rate of 42.1% for all rectal cancers. For upper-rectal cancer the rates of local recurrence, predicted mortality, R0 resection and conversion were: 0%, 1.9%, 97.6% and 0% respectively. Corresponding figures for low-rectal cancer were: 4.2%, 2.7%, 95.8% and 0%. There were no significant differences for age, sex, predicted morbidity/mortality, survival, recurrence or leak rates between the groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has a comparable permanent -ostomy rate to open rectal cancer surgery. We benchmark 31.7% as the permanent -ostomy rate for upper-rectal cancer and 62.5% for low-rectal cancer following laparoscopic resection, in the context of 96.9% R0 resection and 0% conversion rate in a consecutive series of patients.

Impact of a care pathway in acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that accurate process of care predicts quality of care. Few examples currently exist for process of care for the acute surgical patient. A recent region wide audit had identified good outcomes for patients with acute pancreatitis at our institution but aspects of care that could be improved. METHODS: For this re-audit, a simple written care pathway for the management of those presenting with acute pancreatitis was introduced in our institution from February to July 2009. The audit standards were set against the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for management of acute pancreatitis and were compared with the previous region wide audit. RESULTS: Marked improvements were noted in the rates of abdominal imaging achieved within 24 h of diagnosis (35.2% vs 47.7%), severity stratification within 48 h of diagnosis (28.7% vs 75%), critical care admission for those classified as severe (39.3% vs 63.6%) and definitive treatment during index admission (22.2% vs 38.5%). Survival rates were 100% for this audit cycle and 95% for all patients within the region wide audit. Despite these improvements, care still does not reach the standards set out by BSG. CONCLUSION: Predefined processes of care may help to recognise those developing or likely to develop severe pancreatitis, ensure accurate documentation of severity, expedite critical care review and/or admission, and help to encourage the timely management of those with a treatable underlying cause of their pancreatitis.

Impact of a care pathway in acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that accurate process of care predicts quality of care. Few examples currently exist for process of care for the acute surgical patient. A recent region wide audit had identified good outcomes for patients with acute pancreatitis at our institution but aspects of care that could be improved. METHODS: For this re-audit, a simple written care pathway for the management of those presenting with acute pancreatitis was introduced in our institution from February to July 2009. The audit standards were set against the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for management of acute pancreatitis and were compared with the previous region wide audit. RESULTS: Marked improvements were noted in the rates of abdominal imaging achieved within 24 h of diagnosis (35.2% vs 47.7%), severity stratification within 48 h of diagnosis (28.7% vs 75%), critical care admission for those classified as severe (39.3% vs 63.6%) and definitive treatment during index admission (22.2% vs 38.5%). Survival rates were 100% for this audit cycle and 95% for all patients within the region wide audit. Despite these improvements, care still does not reach the standards set out by BSG. CONCLUSION: Predefined processes of care may help to recognise those developing or likely to develop severe pancreatitis, ensure accurate documentation of severity, expedite critical care review and/or admission, and help to encourage the timely management of those with a treatable underlying cause of their pancreatitis.

Nutritional strategies in severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review of the evidence.

Nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis is a critical aspect in the management of this condition. This review aims to systematically review the evidence available to inform the use of nutritional support in severe acute pancreatitis. High quality (level 1) evidence supports naso-jejunal enteral nutrition (NJ-EN) over parenteral nutrition (PN) reducing infectious morbidity and showing a trend towards reduced organ failure although there is no detectable difference in mortality. Trial data may underestimate benefit as patients are often recruited with predicted rather than proven severe disease. NJ-EN is safe when started immediately (level 3 evidence). NJ-EN is often impractical and naso-gastric (NG) feeding seems to be equivalent in terms of safety and outcomes whilst being more practical (level 2 evidence). Regarding feed supplementation, probiotic feed supplementation is not beneficial (level 1 evidence) the and may cause harm with excess mortality (level 2 evidence). No evidence exists to confirm benefit of the addition of prokinetics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) although their use is proven in other critically ill patients. Level 2 evidence does not currently support the use of combination immuno-nutrition though further work on individual agents may provide differing results. Level 2 evidence does not support intravenous supplementation of anti-oxidants and has demonstrated that these too may cause harm.

Outcome of ilio-popliteal grafting for peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: Assess outcomes of ilio-politeal grafting for complex ilio-femoral atherosclerotic disease. DESIGN: Retrospective review of patients undergoing iliopopliteal grafting between January 1998 and January 2007. METHODS: Patients were identified from our unit database. Case notes and radiology were retrieved. Data were extracted and entered into the database for analysis. RESULTS: 19 grafts were undertaken in 19 patients. Primary graft patency was 45% at 1 year (95% CI, 22% - 68%). Secondary graft patency was 82.5% at one year (95% CI, 64% - 100%). 25 subsequent surgical and radiological interventions were undertaken in 12 patients. Lower limb amputation was rare; limb survival was 88% (95% CI, 72% - 100%) at one year and 73% (95% CI 44% - 100%) at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Iliopopliteal grafts are rarely undertaken severe disease requiring their use is infrequently encountered. High mortality and low primary patency mean its use can only be advocated in exceptional circumstances.

Healing by primary closure versus open healing after surgery for pilonidal sinus: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effects of open healing compared with primary closure for pilonidal sinus and optimal closure method (midline v off-midline). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane register of controlled trials, Cochrane Wounds Group specialised trials register, Medline (1950-2007), Embase, and CINAHL bibliographic databases, without language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes were time (days) to healing, surgical site infection, and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were time to return to work, other complications and morbidity, cost, length of hospital stay, and wound healing rate. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus in patients aged 14 years or more. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and assessed for quality. Meta-analyses used fixed and random effects models, dichotomous data were reported as relative risks or Peto odds ratios and continuous data are given as mean differences; all with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 18 trials (n=1573) were included. 12 trials compared open healing with primary closure. Time to healing was quicker after primary closure although data were unsuitable for aggregation. Rates of surgical site infection did not differ; recurrence was less likely to occur after open healing (relative risk 0.42, 0.26 to 0.66). 14 patients would require their wound to heal by open healing to prevent one recurrence. Six trials compared surgical closure methods (midline v off-midline). Wounds took longer to heal after midline closure than after off-midline closure (mean difference 5.4 days, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 8.5), rate of infection was higher (relative risk 4.70, 95% confidence interval 1.93 to 11.45), and risk of recurrence higher (Peto odds ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval 2.18 to 11.24). Nine patients would need to be treated by an off-midline procedure to prevent one surgical site infection and 11 would need to be treated to prevent one recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Wounds heal more quickly after primary closure than after open healing but at the expense of increased risk of recurrence. Benefits were clearly shown with off-midline closure compared with midline closure. Off-midline closure should become standard management for pilonidal sinus when closure is the desired surgical option.