A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-effectiveness of the Surgisis Anal Fistula Plug Versus Surgeon's Preference for Transsphincteric Fistula-in-Ano: The FIAT Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a randomized comparison of the Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug against surgeon's preference in treating cryptoglandular transsphincteric fistula-in-ano. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of the Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug in healing anal fistulae is uncertain. METHODS: Participants were randomized to the fistula plug with surgeon's preference (advancement flap, cutting seton, fistulotomy, Ligation of the Intersphincteric Fistula Tract procedure). The primary outcome was faecal incontinence quality of life (FIQoL) at 12-months. Secondary outcomes were fistula healing, incontinence rates, and complication and reintervention rates. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and March 2016, 304 participants were randomized to fistula plug or surgeon's preference. No differences were seen in FIQoL between the 2 groups at 12 months. Clinical fistula healing was reported in 66/122 (54%) of the fistula plug and 66/119 (55%) of the surgeon's preference groups at 12 months. Fecal incontinence rates improved marginally in both the groups. Complications and reinterventions were frequent, with significantly more complications in the fistula plug group at 6-weeks (49/142, 35% vs 25/137, 18%; P=0.002). The mean total costs were £2738 (s.d. £1151) for the fistula plug and £2308 (s.d. £1228) for the surgeon's preference group (mean difference +£430, P=0.0174). The average total quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was marginally higher in the fistula plug group. The fistula plug was 35% to 45% likely to be cost-effective across a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 / QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug is associated with similar FIQoL and healing rates to surgeon's preference at 12 months. Higher costs and highly uncertain gains in QALYs mean that the fistula plug may not be considered as a cost-effective treatment in the UK NHS.

Anal fistula plug versus surgeon's preference for surgery for trans-sphincteric anal fistula: the FIAT RCT.

BACKGROUND: The aim of fistula surgery is to eradicate the disease while preserving anal sphincter function. The efficacy of the Surgisis® anal fistula plug (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) in the treatment of trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano has been variably reported. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a randomised comparison of the safety and efficacy of the Surgisis anal fistula plug in comparison with surgeon's preference for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistulas. DESIGN: A randomised, unblinded, parallel-arm, prospective, multicentre clinical trial. SETTING: Hospitals in the UK NHS involving colorectal surgeons accredited by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients suffering from trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano of cryptoglandular origin. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either the fistula plug or the surgeon's preference [e.g. fistulotomy, cutting seton, advancement flap or ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was quality of life as measured by the Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQoL) questionnaire at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included clinical and radiological fistula healing rates, faecal incontinence rates, complications rates, reintervention rates and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and March 2016, 304 participants were recruited (152 fistula plug vs. 152 surgeon's preference). No difference in FIQoL score between the two trial groups was seen at the 6-week, 6-month or 12-month follow-up. Clinical evidence of fistula healing was reported in 66 of 122 (54%) participants in the fistula plug group and in 66 of 119 (55%) participants in the surgeon's preference group at 12 months. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed fistula healing in 54 of 110 (49%) participants in the fistula plug group and in 63 of 112 (56%) participants in the surgeon's preference group. Variation in 12-month clinical healing rates was observed: 55%, 64%, 75%, 53% and 42% for fistula plug, cutting seton, fistulotomy, advancement flap and LIFT procedure, respectively. Faecal incontinence rates were low at baseline, with small improvement in both groups post treatment. Complications and reinterventions were frequent. The mean total costs were £2738 [standard deviation (SD) £1151] in the fistula plug group and £2308 (SD £1228) in the surgeon's preference group. The average total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was much smaller in the fistula plug group (0.829, SD 0.174) than in the surgeon's preference group (0.790, SD 0.212). Using multiple imputation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and adjusting for differences in baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version utility, there was a 35-45% chance that the fistula plug was as cost-effective as surgeon's preference over a range of thresholds of willingness to pay for a single QALY of £20,000-30,000. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a smaller sample size than originally calculated, a lack of blinding that perhaps biased patient-reported outcomes and a lower compliance rate with MRI at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The Surgisis anal fistula plug is associated with similar FIQoL score to surgeon's preference at 12-month follow-up. The higher costs and highly uncertain and small gains in QALYs associated with the fistula plug mean that this technology is unlikely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK: Further in-depth analysis should consider the clinical and MRI characteristics of fistula-in-ano in an attempt to identify predictors of fistula response to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78352529. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fistula-in-ano is a common condition in which the inside of the anus is in communication with the outside skin. It is a cause of long-term suffering owing to recurrent infection. Many surgical operations have been proposed to treat fistula-in-ano, with varying degrees of success. These carry the risk of faecal incontinence. The aim of the Fistula-In-Ano Trial (FIAT) was to assess the benefits of a new technology, the Surgisis^® anal fistula plug (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), compared with other surgical techniques. The FIAT involved 304 participants; 152 participants were treated with the fistula plug and 152 participants were treated with an alternative surgical technique. There were no differences in quality of life (QoL) among participants treated with the fistula plug compared with those receiving other treatments when assessed 12 months following the operation. Successful fistula healing was achieved in 54% of fistula plug-treated participants and in 55% of participants treated with an alternative technique at 12 months following the operation. Few patients suffered from faecal incontinence before their operation and there was a slight improvement following treatment with the fistula plug and other surgical treatments. The only difference seen between the group treated with the fistula plug and those receiving other surgical treatments was in the complication rate at the 6-week assessment time, with the fistula plug group having higher rates of unexpected pain. Economic analysis of the fistula plug compared with the other surgical treatments showed that the fistula plug was more expensive and only produced very small improvements in QoL. On this basis, it is unlikely that decision-makers in the NHS will support the routine use of the fistula plug.

A mixed-methods feasibility and external pilot study to inform a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effects of surgical wound dressing strategies on surgical site infections (Bluebelle Phase B): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common, occurring in up to 25% of > 4 million operations performed in England each year. Previous trials of the effect of wound dressings on the risk of developing a SSI are of poor quality and underpowered. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a feasibility and pilot trial to examine the feasibility of a full trial that will compare simple dressings, no dressing and tissue-glue as a dressing. It is examining the overall acceptability of trial participation, identifying opportunities for refinement, testing the feasibility of and validating new outcome tools to assess SSI, wound management issues and patients' wound symptom experiences. It is also exploring methods for avoiding performance bias and blinding outcome assessors by testing the feasibility of collecting wound photographs taken in theatre immediately after wound closure and, at 4-8 weeks after surgery, taken by participants themselves or their carers. Finally, it is identifying the main cost drivers for an economic evaluation of dressing types. Integrated qualitative research is exploring acceptability and reasons for non-adherence to allocation. Adults undergoing primary elective or unplanned abdominal general surgery or Caesarean section are eligible. The main exclusion criteria are abdominal or other major surgery less than three months before the index operation or contraindication to dressing allocation. The trial is scheduled to recruit for nine months. The findings will be used to inform the design of a main trial. DISCUSSION: This pilot trial is the first pragmatic study to randomise participants to no dressing or tissue-glue as a dressing versus a simple dressing. Early evidence from the ongoing pilot shows that recruitment is proceeding well and that the interventions are acceptable to participants. Combined with the qualitative findings, the findings will inform whether a main, large trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN49328913 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

Validation study of a quantitative multigene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer.

PURPOSE: We developed quantitative gene expression assays to assess recurrence risk and benefits from chemotherapy in patients with stage II colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We sought validation by using RNA extracted from fixed paraffin-embedded primary colon tumor blocks from 1,436 patients with stage II colon cancer in the QUASAR (Quick and Simple and Reliable) study of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy versus surgery alone. A recurrence score (RS) and a treatment score (TS) were calculated from gene expression levels of 13 cancer-related genes (n = 7 recurrence genes and n = 6 treatment benefit genes) and from five reference genes with prespecified algorithms. Cox proportional hazards regression models and log-rank methods were used to analyze the relationship between the RS and risk of recurrence in patients treated with surgery alone and between TS and benefits of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Risk of recurrence was significantly associated with RS (hazard ratio [HR] per interquartile range, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.74; P = .004). Recurrence risks at 3 years were 12%, 18%, and 22% for predefined low, intermediate, and high recurrence risk groups, respectively. T stage (HR, 1.94; P < .001) and mismatch repair (MMR) status (HR, 0.31; P < .001) were the strongest histopathologic prognostic factors. The continuous RS was associated with risk of recurrence (P = .006) beyond these and other covariates. There was no trend for increased benefit from chemotherapy at higher TS (P = .95). CONCLUSION: The continuous 12-gene RS has been validated in a prospective study for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer after surgery and provides prognostic value that complements T stage and MMR. The TS was not predictive of chemotherapy benefit.

Reduction of surgical site infection using a novel intervention (ROSSINI): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication following abdominal surgery. It is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, and its management results in significant cost to health services within both primary and secondary care. Some surgeons believe that the use of a wound-edge protection device may reduce the incidence of SSI. Whilst there is some encouraging evidence showing that such devices may lead to a reduction in SSI, there are no controlled trials of sufficient size or quality to support their routine use. METHODS/DESIGN: 750 patients will be recruited from around 20 surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing laparotomy through any major abdominal incision for any indication, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18, those undergoing a laparoscopic assisted procedure or who have undergone laparotomy within the previous 3 months, and those who are unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to the use of a wound-edge protection device or no wound-edge protection device during surgery. Follow up will consist of blinded clinical wound reviews at 5-7 days and 30-33 days postoperatively with a self-completed questionnaire covering the intervening period. Quality of life questionnaires will be completed prior to surgery and at the subsequent wound review points and information on resource usage will also be captured.The primary outcome measure is SSI within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include the impact of the degree of wound contamination, patient comorbidity, and operative characteristics on the efficacy of a wound-edge protection device in reducing SSI and whether the use of a wound-edge protection device has an effect on health-related quality of life or length of hospital stay and is cost-effective. DISCUSSION: Rossini is the first multicentre observer-blinded randomised controlled trial of sufficient size and quality to establish whether the use of a wound-edge protection device in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery leads to a lower rate of SSI. The results of this study will be used to inform current surgical practice and may potentially benefit patients undergoing surgery in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN: ISRCTN40402832.