Cautery versus scalpel for abdominal skin incisions: a double blind, randomized crossover trial of scar cosmesis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is any difference in cosmetic outcome between using cutting diathermy and using a scalpel to make abdominal skin incisions. METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study. The primary end point was wound cosmesis as judged by the patient. In each case, one-half of the skin incision was made using diathermy, and one-half using a scalpel blade. Patients were contacted at 6 months post-operatively, and were asked which half of the wound looked better to them. A panel of 18 surgeons was also shown photographs of the wounds taken after 6 months, and were asked the same question. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients with complete follow-up, 11 (35%) reported no difference between the two halves of the wound. Nine (29%) preferred the half incised with diathermy, and 11 (35%) preferred the half incised with the scalpel (P = 0.82, chi-squared test). Twenty-four patients consented to having their wound photographed. There was no difference in the surgeons' preference between the diathermy and scalpel halves of the incision (P = 0.35, signed-rank test). CONCLUSION: We found the use of cutting diathermy to make abdominal skin incisions to be cosmetically equivalent to cutting with the scalpel. As previous studies have not shown adverse wound outcomes using this technique, and considering the safety concerns for theatre staff when the scalpel is used, the routine use of cutting diathermy for skin incisions in abdominal surgery is justified.

Colorectal preOperative Surgical Score (CrOSS) for mortality in major colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery carries a significant mortality risk, with reported rates of 1-6% for elective surgery and up to 22% in the emergency setting. Both clinicians and patients will benefit from being able to predict the likelihood of death before surgery. Recently, we have described and validated two risk stratification models for colorectal surgery, the Barwon Health 2012 and Association Française de Chirurgie models. However, these models are not suitable for assessment at patient's bedside. The purpose of this study is to develop a simplified preoperative model capable of predicting mortality following colorectal surgery. METHODS: The new model is termed Colorectal preOperative Surgical Score (CrOSS). The development and internal validation of CrOSS was performed using a prospectively maintained colorectal database. External validation was performed using retrospective data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in model development. Calibration and discrimination were used for model validation. RESULTS: There were 474 and 389 consecutive colorectal surgeries at Geelong Hospital and Western Hospital. Overall mortality rates were 5.16% and 1.03%, respectively. Significant predictors for mortality were as follows: age ≥70, urgent operation, albumin ≤30 g/L and congestive heart failure (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) = 0.870, calibration P-value = 0.937). The predicted risk of mortality was stratified according to the risk profile of 0.39-66.51%. When validated externally, CrOSS predicted mortality accurately (ROC = 0.847, calibration P-value = 0.199). CONCLUSIONS: A robust and simple preoperative model has been created to risk-stratify patients for colorectal surgery. This was successfully validated at another tertiary hospital.

Recalibration and validation of a preoperative risk prediction model for mortality in major colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, Barwon Health designed a risk stratification model for mortality in major colorectal surgery with the use of only preoperative risk factors. The Barwon Health 2009 model was shown to predict mortality reliably, and it was comparable to other models, such as the original, POSSUM. However, the Barwon Health 2009 model was never validated with data other than those used to develop the model. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform temporal and external validation of the Barwon Health 2009 model and to compare it with other published models. DESIGN: : The temporal validation was a prospective observational study, whereas the external validation was a retrospective observational study. The discrimination and calibration of the models were assessed by using the area under receiver operator characteristic and χ test of Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fi technique. SETTINGS: This is a multi-institutional study. Data were collected from 2008 to 2010. RESULTS: There were 474 major colorectal cases at Geelong Hospital (temporal validation) and 389 cases at Western Hospital (external validation). The overall mortality rate was 5.10% and 1.03%. In the comparison of the 2 demographics, Geelong Hospital had a higher proportion of patients who were older and had higher ASA scores and comorbidity counts, whereas Western Hospital surgeons were operating on a higher number of urgent cases. Despite the differences, the Barwon Health 2009 model was able to discriminate mortality reliably (area under receiver operator characteristic = 0.753) but had poor model calibration (p < 0.001) on temporal validation. Hence, the model was recalibrated to predict mortality accurately(area under receiver operator characteristic = 0.772; p = 0.83), and this was successfully validated at Western Hospital (area under receiver operator characteristic = 0.788; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a model that can accurately predict mortality after major colorectal surgery by using only data that are available preoperatively. After recalibration, the model was successfully validated in a second hospital.

Does an Acute Surgical Model increase the rate of negative appendicectomy or perforated appendicitis?

INTRODUCTION: The clinical outcomes from suspected appendicitis depend on balancing the rate of negative appendicectomy (NA) with perforated appendicitis (PA). An Acute Surgical Model (ASM) was introduced at Geelong Hospital (GH) in 2011 involving a dedicated emergency general surgery theatre list every business day giving greater access to theatre for general surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the ASM at GH on the management of appendicitis, in particular the NA and PA rates. METHODS: Data for 357 patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy was collected prospectively over 1 year (2011) and compared with a historical control group of 351 patients (2010). The data was analysed for patient demographics, preoperative diagnostic radiology and outcomes including NA and PA rates and complications. The negative appendicectomy rates were compared with contemporary studies. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups in rates of negative appendicectomy 21% (ASM; 73/357) versus 21% (Control; 73/351) P = 0.98, or perforated appendicitis 17% (ASM; 61/357) versus 13% (Control; 47/351) P = 0.18. The introduction of the ASM corresponded to a significantly lower proportion of emergency appendicectomies overnight (4% [16/357] versus 12% [44/351] P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the use of preoperative diagnostic radiology or complications. Matched contemporary studies had a NA rate of 26%. CONCLUSION: The introduction of the ASM at GH has not significantly altered the rate of NA or PA. The NA rate at GH is comparable to other published UK and Australian series.

Medical student participation in a surgical outpatient clinic: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine the patient, doctor and student perceptions with different styles of student participation in a surgical outpatient clinic. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in surgical outpatients. Participants included patients scheduled to see one of four specialist general surgeons, the surgeons themselves and third-year medical students undertaking their general surgery rotation at the Geelong Hospital. A total of 151 consultations were randomized to one of three consultation styles between August 2011 and August 2012. (i) 'No Student', consultation without a student being present, (ii) 'Student with Doctor', consultation where the student accompanied the doctor throughout the consultation and (iii) 'Student before Doctor', consultation where the student interviewed the patient before the doctor and examined the patient in the doctor's presence. Participants' perceptions and experience of each of the consultations was assessed in the form of written questionnaires. RESULTS: There was no difference in overall patient satisfaction with different styles of student participation (P = 0.080). Students showed a clear preference for the 'Student before Doctor' consultation style (P = 0.023). There were no differences in consultation outcomes from the doctor's perspective (P = 0.88), except time (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study supports a style of consultation where students are actively involved in patient care as it has no adverse effects on patient satisfaction and it is the preferred participation style from the student's perspective. Doctors do not feel that active student involvement interferes with their ability to deliver healthcare except that it prolongs consultation time.

Dedicated emergency theatres improve service delivery and surgeons' job satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: There are well-described benefits to separating emergency and elective surgery. Geelong Hospital lacked the resources to implement a separate acute surgical unit, but instituted daily dedicated emergency general surgery operating sessions, managed by an on-site consultant. This study aims to assess the impact of this on service delivery and surgeons' job satisfaction. METHODS: From 1 February 2011, daily half-day operating lists were allocated for general surgical emergencies. Patients treated on these lists were studied prospectively until 31 December 2011. Theatre waiting times and hospital stay were compared with the previous year. A quality-of-life questionnaire was administered to participating surgeons before the project commenced and after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 966 patients underwent surgery during an emergency general surgery admission in the control period, and 984 underwent surgery during the study period. The median time from arrival in the emergency department (ED) to surgery was reduced from 19 (18-21) h in the control group to 18 (17-19) h in the study group (P = 0.033). The time from booking surgery to operation was reduced from 4.8 (4.3-5.4) h to 3.9 (3.5-4.3) h (P < 0.0001). For patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, the time from booking to surgery was reduced from 3.1 (2.2-4.1) to 2.4 (1.8-2.9) h, and hospital stay was reduced from 13 (11-15) to 10 (9-12) days (P = 0.0089). The surgeons' responses to the questionnaires showed improvement in job satisfaction (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This intervention has improved service delivery for emergency surgery patients, and improved the participating surgeons' job satisfaction.