Maintaining Standards in Colorectal Cancer Surgery During the Global Pandemic: A Cohort Study.

AIM: Cancer surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic presents many new challenges. For each patient, the risk of contracting COVID-19 during the perioperative period, with the potential for life-threatening sequelae (1), has to be weighed against the risk of delaying treatment. We assessed the response and short-term outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the pandemic at our institution. METHOD: We report a prospective cohort study of all elective colorectal surgery cases performed at our Trust during the 11 weeks following the national UK lockdown on 23rd March 2020, compared with the same time period in 2019. RESULTS: Eighty-five colorectal operations were performed during the 2020 (COVID) time period, and 179 performed in the 2019 (non-COVID) time period. A significantly higher proportion of cases during the COVID period were cancer-related (66% vs 26%, p < 0.00001). There was no difference in length of hospital stay, complications or readmissions. There were no mortalities in either cohort. Among the cancer patients, there were no differences in TMN staging, R1 resection rate or lymph node yields. No elective patient tested positive for COVID-19 during the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: At the height of the COVID pandemic, we maintained delivery the of high-quality elective colorectal cancer surgery, with no worsening of short-term outcomes and no compromise in the quality of cancer resections. Ongoing monitoring of this cohort is essential. The risks associated with COVID-19 will continue for some time, necessitating adaptive responses to maintain high-quality cancer services.

Extensive Necrotising Enterocolitis: Objective Evaluation of the Role of Second-Look Laparotomy in Bowel Salvage and Survival.

AIM: We investigated the role and outcome of a planned second-look laparotomy (SLL) in preserving bowel in extensive necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). METHODS: Extensive NECs managed surgically in a tertiary centre in 2006-2009 were retrospectively studied to include patients planned for an SLL. End points were bowel salvage rate and survival outcomes. Results were median (ranges), and statistical significance was P < 0.05. MAIN RESULTS: In 4 years, 34 NECs required a laparotomy, and 9 extensive NECs who required an SLL were included. The gestation at birth was 27 (24-38) weeks, birth weight was 1120 (580-2835) g, and first laparotomy performed on day 34 (2-77) of life, with SLL performed 2 (1-3) days after initial laparotomy. Commonest indications for SLL were doubtful bowel viability and physiological instability. 3 died before SLL. Patients who survived to have an SLL (n = 6) had remaining small bowel length of 41 (25-70) cm, overall small bowel salvage rate 51 % (0-100 %), and 30-day survival 5/6 (83 %). Four patients survived for 1 year, their length of NICU stay was 114 (76-120) postoperative days, time on PN was 84 postoperative days (71 days-17 months), including one patient with short bowel syndrome who achieved enteral autonomy at 17 months; one late mortality had short bowel syndrome after further bowel resection for bowel obstruction, developed intestinal failure associated liver disease, and died before 1 year of life following liver transplant. CONCLUSION: SLL is a viable approach for extensive NEC. It offered bowel salvage rate of 51 % and long-term PN-free survival of 44 %, in the patient group who would have had significant risk of mortality and major morbidity.

Surface replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than fifty years: results after a minimum ten-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The role of cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (CSRA) in young individuals is currently unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate CSRA long-term results for glenohumeral arthritis in young patients. METHODS: Between 1990 and 2003, 54 CSRAs were performed on 49 patients (25 men, 24 women) aged younger than 50 years. Mean age was 38.9 years (range, 22-50 years). Three patients (4 shoulders) died over time and 8 were lost to follow-up, leaving 38 patients (42 shoulders) with a mean follow-up of 14.5 years (range, 10-25 years). There were 17 total shoulder replacements with metal back glenoid, and 37 underwent humeral head resurfacing with microfracture of the glenoid. RESULTS: The indications were avascular necrosis, 16; rheumatoid arthritis, 20; instability arthropathy, 7; primary osteoarthritis, 5; fracture sequelae, 3; postinfection arthritis, 2; and psoriatic arthritis, 1. The mean relative Constant score increased from 11.5% to 71.8% (P < .0001), and the mean patient satisfaction at final follow-up was 8.7 of 10. The mean relative Constant score for the humeral head resurfacing with microfracture of the glenoid improved to 77.7% compared with 58.1% for total resurfacing arthroplasty. Two required early arthrodesis due to instability and deep infection. Seven were revised to stemmed prosthesis: 1 for traumatic fracture and 1 for glenoid erosion 16 years after the index procedure. Five shoulders in 4 patients (4 rheumatoid arthritis, 1 avascular necrosis) were revised at 8 to 14 years after surgery for cuff failure and loosening. Three were revised to stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to rotator cuff failure at 23, 16, and 13 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: CSRA provides good long-term symptomatic and functional results in the treatment of glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than 50 years in 81.6% of the patients. This improvement is maintained over more than 10 years after surgery, with high patient satisfaction (8.7 of 10). However, 10 shoulders (of 54) (18.5%) underwent revision arthroplasty. Resurfacing offers a valuable tool in treating young patients with glenohumeral arthritis, providing reasonably good long-term results in 81.6% of the patients, while allowing preservation of bone stock if the need for revision arises. All the revision arthroplasty options are preserved, including less invasive procedures.

The impact and restoration of colorectal services during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A view from Oxford.

Aim: The coronavirus pandemic has significantly disrupted the way we deliver healthcare worldwide. We have been flexible and creative in order to continue providing elective colorectal cancer operations and to restart services for benign cases during the recovery period of the pandemic. In this paper, we describe the impact of coronavirus on our elective services and how we have implemented new patient pathways to allow us to continue providing patient care. Patients and Methods: Data on major colorectal elective resections were prospectively collected in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) database. Data on the number of proctology cases and telemed appointments were collected from the hospital theatre information management system and electronic patient record system, respectively. Results: During the pandemic, there was a complete shift towards cancer cases, with benign services and proctology cases being placed on hold. Hospital length of stay was reduced. We implemented earlier hospital discharge and more intense telephone follow-up after elective major surgery. This has not resulted in an increase in postoperative complications, nor any increase in readmission to hospital. During the recovery phase, we have introduced a higher proportion of telemed consultations, including one-stop telemed proctology clinics, resulting in straight to tests or investigations. Conclusion: We have created a streamlined multidisciplinary pathway to reinstate our elective colorectal services as soon as possible and to minimise potential harm caused to patients whose treatment have been delayed. We anticipate many of these changes will be permanently incorporated into our clinical practice once the pandemic is over.