National prospective cohort study of the burden of acute small bowel obstruction.

Background: Small bowel obstruction is a common surgical emergency, and is associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality across the world. The literature provides little information on the conservatively managed group. The aim of this study was to describe the burden of small bowel obstruction in the UK. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in 131 acute hospitals in the UK between January and April 2017, delivered by trainee research collaboratives. Adult patients with a diagnosis of mechanical small bowel obstruction were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, unplanned intensive care admission and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Practice measures, including use of radiological investigations, water soluble contrast, operative and nutritional interventions, were collected. Results: Of 2341 patients identified, 693 (29·6 per cent) underwent immediate surgery (within 24 h of admission), 500 (21·4 per cent) had delayed surgery after initial conservative management, and 1148 (49·0 per cent) were managed non-operatively. The mortality rate was 6·6 per cent (6·4 per cent for non-operative management, 6·8 per cent for immediate surgery, 6·8 per cent for delayed surgery; P = 0·911). The major complication rate was 14·4 per cent overall, affecting 19·0 per cent in the immediate surgery, 23·6 per cent in the delayed surgery and 7·7 per cent in the non-operative management groups (P < 0·001). Cox regression found hernia or malignant aetiology and malnutrition to be associated with higher rates of death. Malignant aetiology, operative intervention, acute kidney injury and malnutrition were associated with increased risk of major complication. Conclusion: Small bowel obstruction represents a significant healthcare burden. Patient-level factors such as timing of surgery, acute kidney injury and nutritional status are factors that might be modified to improve outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder pathology.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy for patients admitted with acute gallbladder pathology is unclear. Some studies have shown that emergency cholecystectomy during the index admission can reduce length of hospital stay with similar rates of conversion to open surgery, complications and mortality compared with a 'delayed' operation following discharge. Others have reported that cholecystectomy during the index acute admission results in higher morbidity, extended length of stay and increased costs. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of emergency versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute benign gallbladder disease. METHODS: Using data from a prospective population-based cohort study examining the outcomes of cholecystectomy in the UK and Ireland, a model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, with a 1-year time horizon for costs and outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results obtained from the model. RESULTS: Emergency cholecystectomy was found to be less costly (£4570 versus £4720; €5484 versus €5664) and more effective (0·8868 versus 0·8662 QALYs) than delayed cholecystectomy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the emergency strategy is more than 60 per cent likely to be cost-effective across willingness-to-pay values for the QALY from £0 to £100 000 (€0-120 000). CONCLUSION: Emergency cholecystectomy is less costly and more effective than delayed cholecystectomy. This approach is likely to be beneficial to patients in terms of improved health outcomes and to the healthcare provider owing to the reduced costs.

Role of mammography in the triple assessment of single-quadrant breast symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Most women over the age of 35 years referred to a breast clinic have single-quadrant symptoms and undergo mammography (MMG) as part of the triple assessment of these. A proportion of these women has no abnormality clinically or on ultrasonography (P1 U1). The aim of this study was to assess the additional contribution of MMG in diagnosing cancer in patients with P1 U1 findings and to consider whether it is safe to be more selective when requesting MMG. METHODS: Over a 2-year interval the clinical and radiological details of women whose single-quadrant breast symptoms were assessed as P1 U1, and who were then sent for MMG, were entered into a database. The results of further investigations initiated by a non-benign MMG report were recorded, and the patients reviewed to establish how many cancers were diagnosed purely by MMG and whether these were located at the site of symptoms. RESULTS: There were 454 women in the study group, representing 17·5 per cent of all new referrals. Twenty-one patients (4·6 per cent) were recalled following a non-benign MMG result, ten of whom required image-guided biopsy. Cancer was diagnosed in three patients (0·7 per cent of the study group), located in the contralateral breast in two women and a different ipsilateral quadrant in one. CONCLUSION: MMG in this subset of patients did not increase the cancer detection rate at the site of symptoms and therefore constituted screening. The rationale for requesting MMG in these patients, and indeed for applying the triple assessment rule, should be reconsidered.