Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) randomised selection designs: impact of treatment selection rules on the operating characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) randomised trial designs have been proposed to evaluate multiple research questions in the confirmatory setting. In designs with several interventions, such as the 8-arm 3-stage ROSSINI-2 trial for preventing surgical wound infection, there are likely to be strict limits on the number of individuals that can be recruited or the funds available to support the protocol. These limitations may mean that not all research treatments can continue to accrue the required sample size for the definitive analysis of the primary outcome measure at the final stage. In these cases, an additional treatment selection rule can be applied at the early stages of the trial to restrict the maximum number of research arms that can progress to the subsequent stage(s). This article provides guidelines on how to implement treatment selection within the MAMS framework. It explores the impact of treatment selection rules, interim lack-of-benefit stopping boundaries and the timing of treatment selection on the operating characteristics of the MAMS selection design. METHODS: We outline the steps to design a MAMS selection trial. Extensive simulation studies are used to explore the maximum/expected sample sizes, familywise type I error rate (FWER), and overall power of the design under both binding and non-binding interim stopping boundaries for lack-of-benefit. RESULTS: Pre-specification of a treatment selection rule reduces the maximum sample size by approximately 25% in our simulations. The familywise type I error rate of a MAMS selection design is smaller than that of the standard MAMS design with similar design specifications without the additional treatment selection rule. In designs with strict selection rules - for example, when only one research arm is selected from 7 arms - the final stage significance levels can be relaxed for the primary analyses to ensure that the overall type I error for the trial is not underspent. When conducting treatment selection from several treatment arms, it is important to select a large enough subset of research arms (that is, more than one research arm) at early stages to maintain the overall power at the pre-specified level. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-arm multi-stage selection designs gain efficiency over the standard MAMS design by reducing the overall sample size. Diligent pre-specification of the treatment selection rule, final stage significance level and interim stopping boundaries for lack-of-benefit are key to controlling the operating characteristics of a MAMS selection design. We provide guidance on these design features to ensure control of the operating characteristics.

Assessment of the quality of online patient information resources for patients considering parastomal hernia treatment.

AIM: The aim was to examine the quality of online patient information resources for patients considering parastomal hernia treatment. METHODS: A Google search was conducted using lay search terms for patient facing sources on parastomal hernia. The quality of the content was assessed using the validated DISCERN instrument. Readability of written content was established using the Flesch-Kincaid score. Sources were also assessed against the essential content and process standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) framework for shared decision making support tools. Content analysis was also undertaken to explore what the sources covered and to identify any commonalities across the content. RESULTS: Fourteen sources were identified and assessed using the identified tools. The mean Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score was 43.61, suggesting that the information was difficult to read. The overall quality of the identified sources was low based on the pooled analysis of the DISCERN and Flesch-Kincaid scores, and when assessed against the criteria in the NICE standards framework for shared decision making tools. Content analysis identified eight categories encompassing 59 codes, which highlighted considerable variation between sources. CONCLUSIONS: The current information available to patients considering parastomal hernia treatment is of low quality and often does not contain enough information on treatment options for patients to be able to make an informed decision about the best treatment for them. There is a need for high-quality information, ideally co-produced with patients, to provide patients with the necessary information to allow them to make informed decisions about their treatment options when faced with a symptomatic parastomal hernia.

Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia.

AIM: The aim was to develop and pilot a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia (PSH). METHODS: Standard questionnaire development was undertaken (phases 1-3). An initial list of questionnaire domains was identified from validated colorectal cancer PROMs and from semi-structured interviews with patients with a PSH and health professionals (phase 1). Domains were operationalized into items in a provisional questionnaire, and 'think-aloud' patient interviews explored face validity and acceptability (phase 2). The updated questionnaire was piloted in patients with a stoma who had undergone colorectal surgery and had a computed tomography scan available for review. Patient-reported symptoms were examined in relation to PSH (phase 3). Three sources determined PSH presence: (i) data about PSH presence recorded in hospital notes, (ii) independent expert review of the computed tomography scan and (iii) patient report of being informed of a PSH by a health professional. RESULTS: For phase 1, 169 and 127 domains were identified from 70 PROMs and 29 interviews respectively. In phase 2, 14 domains specific to PSH were identified and operationalized into questionnaire items. Think-aloud interviews led to three minor modifications. In phase 3, 44 completed questionnaires were obtained. Missing data were few: 5/660 items. PSH symptom scores associated with PSH presence varied between different data sources. The scale with the most consistent differences between PSH presence and absence and all data sources was the stoma appearance scale. CONCLUSION: A PROM to examine the symptoms of PSH has been developed from the literature and views of key informants. Although preliminary testing shows it to be understandable and acceptable it is uncertain if it is sensitive to PSH-specific symptoms and further psychometric testing is needed.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon pancreatic cancer treatment (CONTACT Study): a UK national observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic ('COVID' cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8-4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6-5.2) months, p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned.

National Open Abdomen Audit (NOAA) - protocol for an observational audit of the use and management of the open abdomen in secondary care across Great Britain and Ireland.

AIM: Use of open abdomen (OA) remains an important life-saving manoeuvre in the management of trauma and the abdominal catastrophe. The National Open Abdomen Audit (NOAA) is an audit project investigating the indications, management, and subsequent outcomes of OA treatment throughout the UK. The aim is to generate a snapshot of practice which will inform the management of future patients and potentially reduce the significant harm that can be associated with OA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NOAA is a collaborative, prospective observational audit recruiting patients from across Great Britain and Ireland. The study will open from July 2023 with rolling recruitment across participating sites. All adult patients who leave theatre with an OA will be included and followed-up for 90 days. The primary objective is to prospectively audit the national variability in the management of the OA. Secondary outcomes include the treatment modality used for OA, indication, outcome of treatment and complications, including mortality and development of intestinal failure. All data will be recorded and managed using the secure REDCap electronic data capture and analysed using Stata (version 16.1). Results will be reported in accordance with the STROBE statement. CONCLUSION: Results will be used to formulate a practical clinical guideline on when to implement an OA along with a stepwise management plan once initiated to reduce the associated morbidity and mortality. It is hoped that participation in this study will facilitate education of surgeons with a "trickle down" effect on all members of the surgical team and remove variability in the management.

An international assessment of surgeon practices in abdominal wound closure and surgical site infection prevention by the European Society for Coloproctology.

AIM: The burden of abdominal wound failure can be profound. Recent clinical guidelines have highlighted the heterogeneity of laparotomy closure techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate current midline closure techniques and practices for prevention of surgical site infection (SSI). METHOD: An online survey was distributed in 2021 among the membership of the European Society of Coloproctology and its partner societies. Surgeons were asked to provide information on how they would close the abdominal wall in three specific clinical scenarios and on SSI prevention practices. RESULTS: A total of 561 consultants and trainee surgeons participated in the survey, mainly from Europe (n = 375, 66.8%). Of these, 60.6% identified themselves as colorectal surgeons and 39.4% as general surgeons. The majority used polydioxanone for fascial closure, with small bite techniques predominating in clean-contaminated cases (74.5%, n = 418). No significant differences were found between consultants and trainee surgeons. For SSI prevention, more surgeons preferred the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone over MBP and oral antibiotics combined. Most surgeons preferred 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine (68.4%) or aqueous povidone-iodine (61.1%) for skin preparation. The majority did not use triclosan-coated sutures (73.3%) or preoperative warming of the wound site (78.5%), irrespective of level of training or European/non-European practice. CONCLUSION: Abdominal wound closure technique and SSI prevention strategies vary widely between surgeons. There is little evidence of a risk-stratified approach to wound closure materials or techniques, with most surgeons using the same strategy for all patient scenarios. Harmonization of practice and the limitation of outlying techniques might result in better outcomes for patients and provide a stable platform for the introduction and evaluation of further potential improvements.

Investigating the impact of fluid status on the ultrasound assessment of muscle quantity and quality in the diagnosis of sarcopenia - a multidimensional cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is a clinical manifestation of adverse ageing, characterised by progressive loss of muscle mass and function. Diagnosis requires assessment of muscle quantity and quality; ultrasound represents an emerging tool for this. However, ultrasound muscle assessment may be impacted by fluid balance. This is particularly important when assessing for acute sarcopenia in hospitalised patients, where fluid disturbance often occurs. The primary aim of this study was to characterise the impact of fluid status on ultrasound muscle assessment, such that this may be accounted for in sarcopenia diagnostics. METHODS: This Multidimensional Cross-sectional study involved 80 participants, who were inpatients at QEHB, a large UK tertiary centre. Fluid status was evaluated clinically and quantified using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA). Muscle quantity was measured using Bilateral Anterior Thigh Thickness (BATT) with Rectus Femoris (RF) echogenicity used to assesses muscle adiposity and hence provide an inverse measure of muscle quality. RESULTS: A significant positive correlation was found between fluid status, measured using BIA, and BATT as a measure of muscle quantity, in males (rs = 0.662, p < 0.001) and females (rs = 0.638, p < 0.001). A significant negative correlation was found between fluid status and RF echogenicity (rs=-0.448, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate associations between fluid balance and ultrasound assessment of muscle quantity and quality. Given the emerging use of ultrasound muscle assessment in sarcopenia diagnosis, there is a need to account for this in clinical practice. Future research should focus on the development of a corrective equation allowing assessment of muscle quantity and quality which account for changes in fluid status, hence aiding accurate diagnosis of sarcopenia.

A vascular multi-arm multi-stage trial to prevent groin wound surgical site infection: A feasibility survey.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is common following arterial surgery involving a groin incision. There is a lack of evidence regarding interventions to prevent groin wound SSI, therefore, a survey of vascular clinicians was undertaken to assess current opinion and practice, equipoise and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants at the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting were surveyed regarding three separate interventions designed to prevent SSI in the groin; impregnated incise drapes, diakylcarbomoyl chloride dressings and antibiotic impregnated collagen sponges. Results were collated via an online survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. Seventy-five participants completed the questionnaire, most were consultant vascular surgeons (50/75, 66.7%). The majority agree that groin wound SSI is a major problem (73/75, 97.3%), and would be content using either of the three interventions (51/61, 83.6%) and had clinical equipoise to randomise patients to any of the three interventions versus standard of care (70/75, 93.3%). There was some reluctance to not use impregnated incise drapes as may be considered "standard of care". Groin wound SSI is perceived as major problem in vascular surgery, and a multicentre RCT of three preventative interventions appears acceptable to vascular surgeons.

Postoperative Packing of Perianal Abscess Cavities (PPAC2): randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perianal abscess is common. Traditionally, postoperative perianal abscess cavities are managed with internal wound packing, a practice not supported by evidence. The aim of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to assess if non-packing is less painful and if it is associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: The Postoperative Packing of Perianal Abscess Cavities (PPAC2) trial was a multicentre, RCT (two-group parallel design) of adult participants admitted to an NHS hospital for incision and drainage of a primary perianal abscess. Participants were randomized 1:1 (via an online system) to receive continued postoperative wound packing or non-packing. Blinded data were collected via symptom diaries, telephone, and clinics over 6 months. The objective was to determine whether non-packing of perianal abscess cavities is less painful than packing, without an increase in perianal fistula or abscess recurrence. The primary outcome was pain (mean maximum pain score on a 100-point visual analogue scale). RESULTS: Between February 2018 and March 2020, 433 participants (mean age 42 years) were randomized across 50 sites. Two hundred and thirteen participants allocated to packing reported higher pain scores than 220 allocated to non-packing (38.2 versus 28.2, mean difference 9.9; P < 0.0001). The occurrence of fistula-in-ano was low in both groups: 32/213 (15 per cent) in the packing group and 24/220 (11 per cent) in the non-packing group (OR 0.69, 95 per cent c.i. 0.39 to 1.22; P = 0.20). The proportion of patients with abscess recurrence was also low: 13/223 (6 per cent) in the non-packing group and 7/213 (3 per cent) in the packing group (OR 1.85, 95 per cent c.i. 0.72 to 4.73; P = 0.20). CONCLUSION: Avoiding abscess cavity packing is less painful without a negative morbidity risk. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93273484 (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN93273484). REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03315169 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).

Perianal abscess is a common, painful condition due to infection and swelling around the anus caused by blockage of the anal glands. The treatment of perianal abscess has stayed the same for over 50 years. An operation is performed under general anaesthetic to cut the skin and drain the infection. This is followed by continued internal dressing (packing) of the remaining cavity (hole) until the skin has healed over. Packing changes are needed multiple times a week for several weeks. Packing is the accepted treatment as it is believed to reduce the chance of the abscess coming back, and also reduces the chance of perianal fistula forming. There are no medical studies to support this idea. Perianal fistula (an abnormal passage between the skin around the anus, and the inside of the anal canal or rectum) is a long-term condition, which causes pain, and pus (and sometimes faeces) discharge, and often needs another operation (or multiple operations) to fix it. This trial was performed to demonstrate if no packing of a perianal abscess would result in a reduction of pain, with no increase in unwanted abscess recurrences and fistulas, in comparison to the standard treatment of packing. The trial recruited 433 people, who were randomly chosen to enter one of two groups; one to have their wound packed and the other to have no packing of the wound. After being discharged from hospital following surgery, the patients attended or were visited by a community nurse for the dressing to be changed or wound packed. Each patient provided information on pain from their wound, including worst pain each day and pain before, during, and after the changing of their dressing or packing. This and other information was gathered for the first 10 days after surgery and periodically until 6 months after surgery. The no-packing group experienced much less pain than the packing group. There was no difference in abscess recurrence and fistula formation between the non-packing and packing groups. The findings demonstrate that no packing of perianal abscess wounds after drainage operation is the best treatment.

Perioperative interventions to reduce pancreatic fistula following pancreatoduodenectomy: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on interventions to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assimilate data from RCTs. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched systematically for RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce all grades of POPF or clinically relevant (CR) POPF after PD. Meta-analysis was undertaken for interventions investigated in multiple studies. A post hoc analysis of negative RCTs assessed whether these had appropriate statistical power. RESULTS: Among 22 interventions (7512 patients, 55 studies), 12 were assessed by multiple studies, and subjected to meta-analysis. Of these, external pancreatic duct drainage was the only intervention associated with reduced rates of both CR-POPF (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.80) and all-POPF (OR 0.42, 0.25 to 0.70). Ulinastatin was associated with reduced rates of CR-POPF (OR 0.24, 0.06 to 0.93). Invagination (versus duct-to-mucosa) pancreatojejunostomy was associated with reduced rates of all-POPF (OR 0.60, 0.40 to 0.90). Most negative RCTs were found to be underpowered, with post hoc power calculations indicating that interventions would need to reduce the POPF rate to 1 per cent or less in order to achieve 80 per cent power in 16 of 34 (all-POPF) and 19 of 25 (CR-POPF) studies respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports a role for several interventions to reduce POPF after PD. RCTs in this field were often relatively small and underpowered, especially those evaluating CR-POPF.

External validation of postoperative pancreatic fistula prediction scores in pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk scores claim to predict the probability of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy. It is unclear which scores have undergone external validation and are the most accurate. The aim of this study was to identify risk scores for POPF, and assess the clinical validity of these scores. METHODS: Areas under receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROCs) were extracted from studies that performed external validation of POPF risk scores. These were pooled for each risk score, using intercept-only random-effects meta-regression models. RESULTS: Systematic review identified 34 risk scores, of which six had been subjected to external validation, and so included in the meta-analysis, (Tokyo (N=2 validation studies), Birmingham (N=5), FRS (N=19), a-FRS (N=12), m-FRS (N=3) and ua-FRS (N=3) scores). Overall predictive accuracies were similar for all six scores, with pooled AUROCs of 0.61, 0.70, 0.71, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively. Considerably heterogeneity was observed, with I2 statistics ranging from 52.1-88.6%. CONCLUSION: Most risk scores lack external validation; where this was performed, risk scores were found to have limited predictive accuracy. . Consensus is needed for which score to use in clinical practice. Due to the limited predictive accuracy, future studies to derive a more accurate risk score are warranted.

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines).

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Health-related quality of life, uncertainty and coping strategies in solid organ transplant recipients during shielding for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strict isolation of vulnerable individuals has been a strategy implemented by authorities to protect people from COVID-19. Our objective was to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), uncertainty and coping behaviours in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey of adult SOT recipients undergoing follow-up at our institution was performed. Perceived health status, uncertainty and coping strategies were assessed using the EQ-5D-5L, Short-form Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale (SF-MUIS) and Brief Cope, respectively. Interactions with COVID-19 risk perception, access to health care, demographic and clinical variables were assessed. The survey was completed by 826 of 3839 (21.5%) invited participants. Overall, low levels of uncertainty in illness were reported, and acceptance was the major coping strategy (92%). Coping by acceptance, feeling protected, self-perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 were associated with lower levels of uncertainty. Health status index scores were significantly lower for those with mental health illness, compromised access to health care, a perceived high risk of severe COVID-19 infection and higher levels of uncertainty. A history of mental health illness, risk perceptions, restricted healthcare access, uncertainty and coping strategies was associated with poorer HRQoL in SOT recipients during strict isolation. These findings may allow identification of strategies to improve HRQoL in SOT recipients during the pandemic.

Collaboration in colorectal surgical research.

Surgical research has been under-powered, under-funded and under-delivered for decades. A solution may be to form large research collaborations and thereby enable implementation of successful interventional trials as well as robust international observational studies with thousands of patients. There are many such research collaborations in colorectal surgery, and in this paper we have highlighted the experiences from the West Midlands Research Collaborative (WMRC), the Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group (SSORG) and the European Society of Coloproctology. With active research networks, it is possible to deliver large, high-quality studies and provide high-level evidence for solving important clinical questions in an efficient and timely manner.

Protocol for the UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study).

AIM: Abdominal surgery sometimes necessitates the creation of a stoma, which can cause future complications including parastomal hernia (PSH), an incisional hernia adjacent to and related to the stoma. PSH affects approximately 40% of patients within 2 years of stoma formation. Complications of PSH reduce a patient's quality of life and can be severe (e.g. bowel obstruction). PSHs are difficult to manage and can recur after surgical repair. Therefore, it is very important to prevent a PSH. Surgeons create stomas in different ways and both patient and surgical factors are believed to influence the development of PSH. The aim of the CIPHER study is to investigate the influence of different surgical techniques on the development of PSH. METHOD: The UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study) aims to recruit 4000 patients undergoing elective or expedited surgery with the intention of forming an ileostomy or colostomy, irrespective of the primary indication for the planned surgery. For each patient, surgeons will describe their methods of trephine formation, mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine, use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site and wound closure. The primary outcome will be incident PSH during follow-up, defined as symptoms of PSH (custom-designed questionnaire) and anatomical PSH, ascertained by independent reading of usual care CT scans. Secondary outcomes will include surgical site infection, the Comprehensive Complication Index, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-12), PSH repair and use of NHS resources. RESULTS: Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. All publications relating to the results of CIPHER will use a corporate authorship, 'The CIPHER Study Investigators' with named writing committee members. CONCLUSION: The CIPHER study will be the first to investigate detailed surgical methods of stoma formation in a large, representative cohort of patients with a range of primary indications, both cancer and noncancer.

Translation and international validation of the Colostomy Impact score.

AIM: Optimal oncological resection in cancers of the lower rectum often requires a permanent colostomy. However, in some patients a colostomy may have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Colostomy Impact (CI) score is a simple questionnaire that identifies patients with stoma dysfunction that impairs HRQoL by dividing patients into 'minor' and 'major' CI groups. This aim of this study is to evaluate construct and discriminative validity, sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the CI score internationally, making it applicable for screening and identification of patients with stoma-related impaired HRQoL. METHOD: The CI score was translated in agreement with WHO recommendations. Cross-sectional cohorts of rectal cancer survivors with a colostomy in Australia, China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden were asked to complete the CI score, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life 30-item core questionnaire, the stoma-specific items of the EORTC quality of life 29-item colorectal-specific questionnaire and five anchor questions assessing the impact of colostomy on HRQoL. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients participated (response rate 51%-93%). CI scores were significantly higher in patients reporting reduced HRQoL due to their colostomy than in patients reporting no reduction. Differences in EORTC scale scores between patients with minor and major CI were significant and clinically relevant. Sensitivity was high regarding dissatisfaction with a colostomy. Regarding evaluation of discriminative validity, the CI score relevantly identified groups with differences in HRQoL. The CI score proved reliable, with equal CI scores between test and retest and an intraclass correlation coefficient in the moderate to excellent range. CONCLUSION: The CI score is internationally valid and reliable. We encourage its use in clinical practice to identify patients with stoma dysfunction who require further attention.

Protocol for understanding acute sarcopenia: a cohort study to characterise changes in muscle quantity and physical function in older adults following hospitalisation.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are vulnerable to the effects of acute sarcopenia (acute muscle insufficiency) following hospitalisation. However, this condition remains poorly characterised to date. It is hypothesised that acute sarcopenia arises due to a combination of bed rest and inflammatory surge. This study aims to characterise changes in muscle quantity and function, determining which factors (clinical and biological) are most predictive, and how these relate to change in physical function at 13 weeks. METHODS: This study will include three groups of patients aged 70 years and older; patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, patients admitted for emergency abdominal surgery, and patients admitted under general medicine with acute bacterial infections. Changes in muscle quantity (Bilateral Anterior Thigh Thickness with ultrasound and bioelectrical impedance analysis) and muscle function (muscle strength, physical performance) within 1 week of hospitalisation or surgery will be characterised, with follow-up of patients at 13 weeks. Physical function will be measured using the Patient Reported Outcome Measures Information System, and the Short Physical Performance Battery (or gait speed alone within 1 week of surgery). DISCUSSION: This study will fully characterise changes in muscle quantity and function in hospitalised older adults and enable risk stratification towards targeted interventions in clinical practice. The results of this study will inform further research involving interventions to ameliorate changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03858192 ; Prospectively registered 28th February 2019.

Differences in outcome between patients readmitted to index vs non-index hospital trusts after colorectal resection.

AIM: The clinical consequences of readmission following major surgery in the English National Health Service are unknown. This study aimed to determine differences in outcome between patients readmitted to index vs non-index trusts after major surgery. METHOD: Adult patients who underwent colorectal resection in England in April 2006 to March 2017 were identified in the national Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset. Patients were included if they were readmitted as emergencies within 30 days of initial discharge. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality within 90 days of readmission. Comparisons between patients readmitted to index vs non-index trusts were adjusted for confounders using multivariable logistic regression. Rectal resection patients were a planned subgroup. RESULTS: The readmission rate following colorectal resection was 15.1% (54 680/364 481), with 7.1% (3905/54 680) readmitted to a non-index trust. The 90-day mortality following readmission was 7.1% (3874/54 680) overall and 3.9% (652/16 736) in the rectal resection subgroup. The reoperation rate was 19.2% (10 498/54 680) overall and 23.1% (3859/16 736) after rectal resection. Mortality was significantly higher in non-index [10.9% (427/3905)] vs index trusts [6.8% (3447/507 75), adjusted OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.34-1.68, P < 0.001]. There was an annual average of 14.7 excess deaths in non-index trusts; only 1.9 of these followed surgical reoperation. In patients who underwent rectal resection, only 0.3 of the total 1.9 excess deaths each year in non-index trusts followed surgical reoperation. CONCLUSION: Despite a statistical difference, the absolute number of excess deaths attributable to readmission to a non-index trust is very low, particularly amongst patients requiring reoperation.