Realized impact of COVID-19 related disruptions on the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer mortality in Australia (1). The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) aims to reduce mortality through early detection with a biennial faecal occult blood test for Australians aged 50-74 years (2). Modelling predicted COVID-19 would reduce participation and delay colonoscopies despite the NBCSP continuing during the pandemic (3). This study analyses the realized impact of COVID-19 related disruptions on the NBCSP and the effect on mortality. METHODS: NBCSP participation, time to colonoscopy and annualized mortality were compared before and during COVID-19. The effect on mortality was determined using a validated microsimulation model (4, 5). RESULTS: From 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019, 2 497 317 people participated in the NBCSP and 168 390 received a colonoscopy, compared to 2 490 265 and 162 573 from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. Relative participation decreased 6 % and the proportion of colonoscopies performed within the recommended 120 days increased 14.5%. A disproportionally greater impact was observed outside major cities and in lower socioeconomic areas. An estimated 98-111 additional colorectal cancer deaths resulted from 3 % fewer colonoscopies performed during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: This study presents the most comprehensive analysis of the realized impact of COVID-19 on the NBCSP. Catch-up screening would be best targeted at Australians from rural and lower socioeconomic areas where participation remains low. Streamlined referral pathways and additional colonoscopy provisioning is required as less than two thirds of screen positive patients receive a colonoscopy within the recommended 120 days.

Pelvic floor training improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation despite the presence of rectal intussusception.

BACKGROUND: Rectal intussusception is often observed in patients with faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation. The aim of this study is to assess if pelvic floor training improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation in patients with rectal intussusception. METHODS: Case notes of all patients referred to Bankstown Hospital Pelvic Floor Clinic between 2013 and 2018 for the management of faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation and rectal intussusception were retrospectively reviewed using a prospectively maintained database. St Mark's faecal incontinence and Cleveland clinic constipation scores were obtained from patients before and after they underwent pelvic floor training. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one patients underwent pelvic floor training at Bankstown Hospital Pelvic Floor Clinic between 2013 and 2018. Sixty-one patients had rectal intussusception (22 low-grade and 39 high-grade). Median St Marks score improved following pelvic floor training from 8 to 1 (P < 0.001). Median Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 8 to 5 (P < 0.001). In patients with low grade rectal intussusception, pelvic floor training improved median St Mark's score from 3 to 0 (P = 0.003), whereas Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 9 to 7 (P < 0.001). In patients with high-grade rectal intussusception, pelvic floor training improved median St Mark's score from 9 to 2 (P < 0.001), whereas median Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 8 to 4 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor training without biofeedback therapy improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation. Improvement in symptoms is unrelated to rectal intussusception observed on proctography or at examination under anaesthesia in these patients.

Incidence and etiology of pelvic floor dysfunction and mode of delivery: an overview.

Elective cesarean section at patient request is becoming common place. Women are requesting the intervention for preservation of the pelvic floor, but there is conflicting evidence to suggest that this mode of delivery has such benefits. The risks vs. benefits of both vaginal delivery and cesarean section need to be well understood before deciding on a surgical delivery. This review outlines the current available evidence of the risks and benefits associated with vaginal delivery and elective cesarean section and the incidence and mechanisms of injury that lead to pelvic floor dysfunction. As in most surgical conditions, a better understanding of causality of pelvic floor dysfunction may help treatment effectiveness.

Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Elective caesarean section is controversial in the absence of compelling evidence of the relative benefits and harms compared with vaginal delivery. A randomised trial of the two procedures to compare outcomes for women and babies would provide the best quality scientific evidence to confirm this debate but it is not known whether such a trial would be feasible. AIMS: To ascertain the proportion of primiparas and clinicians who would participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery with elective caesarean section. METHODS: Pregnant women (mean 22 weeks gestation) recruited from public and private antenatal clinics at a major tertiary referral centre were interviewed to ascertain their willingness to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to midwives, obstetricians, urogynaecologists and colorectal surgeons, and results between groups were compared. RESULTS: One hundred pregnant women, 84 midwives, 166 obstetricians, 12 urogynaecologists and 87 colorectal surgeons participated. Only 14% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8-22) of pregnant women and 31% (95% CI, 26-36) of clinicians indicated that they would participate in a randomised controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: A randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section may not be feasible due to low levels of willingness to participate, particularly among pregnant women.