Technical Perspective for Video Based Assessment of Surgeries in Low-Resource Settings.

OBJECTIVE: Scalable digital learning environments are essential to sustain surgical training programs worldwide. Detailed images of surgeries enriched with educational annotations are vital to train the eyes of the learners. Here, we report a low-cost method, deployed in a low-resource setting in West Africa, which may contribute to the growth of use in open-sourced digital surgical resources world-wide. DESIGN: This paper is based on the authors participatory and observational experiences creating surgical video content by way of recording surgical procedures and reflecting on field notes and video content. All surgeries were recorded between January and December 2018. SETTING: Masanga Hospital, a rural district hospital in Sierra Leone, West Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair, elective caesarian section, salpingectomy, bowel resection, hydrocele repair, or below-knee amputation consented for recording their surgical procedure and using the anonymized material for educational purposes. RESULTS: This manual for non-professional cinematographers provides chronological steps for shooting a surgical procedure in a low-resource setting. Recording a surgical procedure to explain surgical techniques, and perform quality assessment through error analysis and coaching requires more than just point-and-shoot. While taking into account local customs and possibilities, practical tips were provided to prepare for the set-up, and recording of a surgical procedure in a low-resourced setting. CONCLUSION: Commercially available digital video technology allows for filming high-quality surgical procedures for educational purposes at rural district hospitals in a low-resource setting.

Oncological Safety and Potential Cost Savings of Routine vs Selective Histopathological Examination After Appendectomy: Results of the Multicenter, Prospective, Cross-Sectional FANCY Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy. BACKGROUND: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €725,400 per 10,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit.

Safety and economic analysis of selective histopathology following cholecystectomy: multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional FANCY study.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate concerning the necessity of routine histopathological examination following cholecystectomy. In order to reduce the pathology workload and save costs, a selective approach has been suggested, but evidence regarding its oncological safety is lacking. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all gallbladders removed for gallstone disease or cholecystitis were systematically examined by the surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities indicative of malignancy. Before sending all specimens to the pathologist, the surgeon judged whether histopathological examination was indicated. The main outcomes were the number of patients with hypothetically missed malignancy with clinical consequences (upper limit two-sided 95 per cent c.i. below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Twenty-two (2.19:1000) of 10 041 specimens exhibited malignancy with clinical consequences. In case of a selective policy, surgeons would have held back 7846 of 10041 (78.1 per cent) gallbladders from histopathological examination. Malignancy with clinical consequences would have been missed in seven of 7846 patients (0.89:1000, upper limit 95% c.i. 1.40:1000). No patient benefitted from the clinical consequences, while two were harmed (futile additional surgery). Of 15 patients in whom malignancy with clinical consequences would have been diagnosed, one benefitted (residual disease radically removed), two potentially benefitted (palliative systemic therapy), and four experienced harm (futile additional surgery). Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €703 500 per 10 000 patients. CONCLUSION: Selective histopathological examination following cholecystectomy is oncologically safe and could reduce pathology workload, costs, and futile re-resections.

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).