Incidence, Healthcare Resource Use and Costs Associated With Incisional Hernia Repair.

Background: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of abdominal surgery affecting between 12.8% and 30% of patients. In spite of this, rates of IH repair remain low, at around 5% in the literature. We aimed to assess the rate of IH repair in the UK across surgical specialties and the cost burden associated with IH repair. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of patients undergoing abdominal surgery in England between 2012 and 2022 using the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Index abdominal surgery was identified between March 2014 and March 2017. Diagnostic and surgical procedure codes were used to identify pre-operative risk factors, index surgeries, IH repair and healthcare contact. Healthcare resource use (HCRU) costs were derived for index surgery and all post-index, non-elective inpatient admissions and outpatient visits using Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes within HES. Results: Of 297,134 patients undergoing abdominal surgery, 5.1% (n = 15,138) subsequently underwent incisional hernia repair. By specialty, rates were higher in Colorectal (10.0%), followed by Hepatobiliary (8.2%), Transplant (6.8%), Urological (4.0%), Bariatric (3.5%), Vascular (3.2%) and Gynaecological (2.6%) surgery. Patients undergoing IH repair had more healthcare contacts, longer length of inpatient stays and more A+E visits vs. those with no IH repair post index surgery (83% ≥ 1 A+E visit vs. 69%), as well as higher rates of referral to mental health services (19.8% vs. 11.5%). IH repair was associated with an average HCRU cost of £23,148 compared to £12,321 in patients with no IH repair. Conclusion: Patients undergoing IH repair have a greater morbidity than those not undergoing repair, shown by higher HCRU and more healthcare contacts. Despite this, rates of surgery for IH are low, suggesting that most patients with hernias are not undergoing repair. Emphasis must be placed squarely on primary prevention, rather than cure.

Planning management for complex colorectal polyps: a qualitative assessment of factors influencing decision-making among colonoscopists.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic therapy is the recommended primary treatment for most complex colorectal polyps, but high colonic resection rates are reported. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand and compare between specialities, the clinical and non-clinical factors influencing decision making when planning management. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were performed among colonoscopists across the UK. Interviews were conducted virtually and transcribed verbatim. Complex polyps were defined as lesions requiring further management planning rather than those treatable at the time of endoscopy. A thematic analysis was performed. Findings were coded to identify themes and reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty colonoscopists were interviewed. Four major themes were identified including gathering information regarding the patient and their polyp, aids to decision making, barriers in achieving optimal management and improving services. Participants advocated endoscopic management where possible. Factors such as younger age, suspicion of malignancy, right colon or difficult polyp location lead towards surgical intervention and were similar between surgical and medical specialties. Availability of expertise, timely endoscopy and challenges in referral pathways were reported barriers to optimal management. Experiences of team decision-making strategies were positive and advocated in improving complex polyp management. Recommendations based on these findings to improve complex polyp management are provided. CONCLUSION: The increasing recognition of complex colorectal polyps requires consistency in decision making and access to a full range of treatment options. Colonoscopists advocated the availability of clinical expertise, timely treatment and education in avoiding surgical intervention and providing good patient outcomes. Team decision-making strategies for complex polyps may provide an opportunity to coordinate and improve these issues.

Current issues and future considerations for the wider implementation of robotic-assisted surgery: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The effective implementation of a fast-changing healthcare delivery innovation, such as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), into a healthcare system, can be affected (both positively and negatively) by external contextual factors. As part of a wider project investigating ways to optimise the implementation of RAS, this qualitative study aimed to uncover current issues of RAS and predictions about the future of robotic surgery. We refer to 'current issues' as the topical and salient challenges and opportunities related to the introduction of RAS in the UK healthcare system, from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the delivery and implementation of RAS. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to summarise salient issues that were articulated by the participants. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The interview sample (n=35) comprised surgeons, wider theatre staff and other relevant personnel involved in the introduction and delivery of RAS services across the UK, including service managers and policymakers/commissioners. Two focus groups were also conducted with surgical trainees (n=7) and members of the public (n=8), respectively. RESULTS: The results revealed a largely positive attitude towards the introduction of RAS technology and an expectation of continued rapid expansion. Areas perceived to be particularly pertinent and requiring ongoing attention were also highlighted, including the need to achieve improved quality control, expertise quantification and training issues and the need to educate the public. Issues of centralisation, service organisation and equity of access were also emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has highlighted a range of issues perceived to be particularly pertinent to the current and future provision of RAS which should be addressed. The areas outlined can enable healthcare managers and surgeons to plan for the adoption and/or expansion of RAS services.

Hughes abdominal closure versus standard mass closure to reduce incisional hernias following surgery for colorectal cancer: the HART RCT.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias can cause chronic pain and complications and affect quality of life. Surgical repair requires health-care resources and has a significant associated failure rate. A prospective, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Hughes abdominal closure method compared with standard mass closure following surgery for colorectal cancer. The study randomised, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 802 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer from 28 surgical departments in UK centres. INTERVENTION: Hughes abdominal closure or standard mass closure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year, as assessed by clinical examination. Within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses over 1 year were conducted from an NHS and a social care perspective. A key secondary outcome was quality of life, and other outcomes included the incidence of incisional hernias as detected by computed tomography scanning. RESULTS: The incidence of incisional hernia at 1-year clinical examination was 50 (14.8%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 57 (17.1%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.27; p = 0.4). In year 2, the incidence of incisional hernia was 78 (28.7%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 84 (31.8%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.25; p = 0.43). Computed tomography scanning identified a total of 301 incisional hernias across both arms, compared with 100 identified by clinical examination at the 1-year follow-up. Computed tomography scanning missed 16 incisional hernias that were picked up by clinical examination. Hughes abdominal closure was found to be less cost-effective than standard mass closure. The mean incremental cost for patients undergoing Hughes abdominal closure was £616.45 (95% confidence interval -£699.56 to £1932.47; p = 0.3580). Quality of life did not differ significantly between the study arms at any time point. LIMITATIONS: As this was a pragmatic trial, the control arm allowed surgeon discretion in the approach to standard mass closure, introducing variability in the techniques and equipment used. Intraoperative randomisation may result in a loss of equipoise for some surgeons. Follow-up was limited to 2 years, which may not have been enough time to see a difference in the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Hughes abdominal closure did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernias detected by clinical examination and was less cost-effective at 1 year than standard mass closure in colorectal cancer patients. Computed tomography scanning may be more effective at identifying incisional hernias than clinical examination, but the clinical benefit of this needs further research. FUTURE WORK: An extended follow-up using routinely collected NHS data sets aims to report on incisional hernia rates at 2-5 years post surgery to investigate any potential mortality benefit of the closure methods. Furthermore, the proportion of incisional hernias identified by a computed tomography scan (at 1 and 2 years post surgery), but not during clinical examination (occult hernias), proceeding to surgical repair within 3-5 years after the initial operation will be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN25616490. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancer treatment involves surgery for the majority of patients. A complication of this surgery is the formation of a hernia at the site of the incision in the abdominal wall, known as an incisional hernia. The lining of the abdomen, fat or the intestine can squeeze through the gap and form a lump under the skin. An incisional hernia can form any time after surgery and can cause serious complications and pain, and can also affect the patient's quality of life. Surgery to correct incisional hernias is not always successful, so finding a way of preventing them is important. This research compares the traditional way of sewing up the abdomen, where the two sides are brought together in one layer with a continuous thread, with an alternative method called the Hughes abdominal closure method/Hughes repair. In the Hughes repair, a series of horizontal and vertical stitches are arranged to spread the load and ease the tension across the wound. A total of 802 patients from 28 sites in the UK were recruited to the trial. Half of the patients were randomly allocated to have traditional abdominal closure and half were randomised to have Hughes abdominal closure. All were followed up for 1 year after surgery to assess whether or not an incisional hernia had occurred. We also assessed quality of life during follow-up, and we compared the costs and benefits of each procedure to see which option was the better value for money. By comparing the results from the two methods, it was hoped that the best method of abdominal closure to reduce the risk of an incisional hernia occurring would be found. The analysis of the data suggested that the risk of an incisional hernia was no different with either closure method. Furthermore, Hughes abdominal closure was more expensive and provided less value for money than standard abdominal closure.

Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn's disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013).