Challenging the Current Risk Factors of Appendiceal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Can They Accurately Predict Local Lymph Nodal Invasion? Results from a Large Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms (ANEN) are uncommon entities, which run mostly an indolent course. Appendicectomy alone is usually curative, except for in a selected group of patients that are deemed to be at risk of loco-regional metastases, in whom a completion right hemicolectomy (RHC) is recommended. The current "Guidelines" criteria for the latter have been controversial, and may result in overtreatment, which is concerning for a young patient population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of the current criteria in identifying more accurately those at-risk patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the 263 cases of ANEN referred for advice or management to a tertiary referral unit over a 10-year period. Seventy-two patients underwent RHC, based on criteria, suggested by International Guidelines. Each one of those was assessed to identify whether it correlated with lymph node invasion (LNI) at the RHC surgical specimen. RESULTS: Tumour grade (p < 0.001), vascular (p = 0.044) and lymph vessel invasion (p < 0.001) were all found to be statistically significant independent risk factors for LNI identified following RHC, whilst tumour size (p = 0.375) and mesoappendiceal invasion (MAI) (p = 0.317) were not statistically significant. However, deep MAI and tumour size >2 cm showed a correlation with each other on LNI positive subgroup analysis. Location in appendiceal base made LNI more likely but again was not significant (p = 0.133). CONCLUSIONS: Higher tumour grade and lymphovascular invasion should be considered as the most important risk prognosticators. Surprisingly, tumour size was not found to be significant in our cohort. Further international multicentre studies with large numbers of patients are needed to fully validate those data.

Difficulty Weaning From Cardiopulmonary Bypass Following an Aortic Valve Replacement.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains the treatment of choice for severe aortic stenosis. Despite the growing number of transcatheter AVR (TAVR) in younger and intermediate-to-low-risk patients, surgical AVR (SAVR) is widely used and retains low operative mortality, low rate of complications, and predictable long-term valve durability. Although it is a straightforward procedure, on some occasions, a surgeon could face challenging situations, such as compromised coronary flow and an inability to wean the patient from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Our patient required concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting to overcome biventricular failure and facilitate successful weaning from CPB.

Post-traumatic Left Ventricular Apical Aneurysm With Endoluminal Thrombus.

Here, we report a case of a 54-year-old man who presented with complications of a left ventricle apical aneurysm, which was the result of a myocardial infarction (MI). Interestingly, he sustained the MI following a cardiac contusion whilst playing rugby 32 years ago. He had another MI 10 years later, despite the presence of normal coronary angiography following the initial event, and presented with two episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over six months. The patient proceeded to surgical resection of the aneurysm and went on to make a good recovery.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Hernia Surgery: The South-East Scotland Experience.

Aim The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a lockdown in South East Scotland on 23 March 2020. This had an impact on the volume of benign elective surgery able to be undertaken. The degree to which this reduced hernia surgery was unknown. The aim of this study was to review the hernia surgery workload in the Lothian region of Scotland and assess the impact of COVID-19 on hernia surgery. Methods The Lothian Surgical Audit database was used to identify all elective and emergency hernia operations over a six-month period from 23 March 2020 and for the same time period in 2019. Data were collected on age, gender, anatomical location of the hernia, hernia repair technique, and whether elective or emergency operation. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-squared test in R-Studio, with a p-value of <0.05 accepted as statistically significant. Results The total number of hernia repairs reduced considerably between 2019 and 2020 (570 vs 149). The majority of this can be explained by a decrease in elective operating (488 vs 87), with the percentage of elective repairs reducing significantly from 85.6% to 58.4% (p<0.001). The inguinal hernia subgroup had a 24% rise in emergency operations from 21 to 26 operations, despite a reduction from 270 to 84 total inguinal repairs. There were just two elective hernia repairs carried out in the first three months of the 2020 study period (5.6% of all operations for April-June) compared to 265 (87.7%) for the same period in 2019 (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in the rates of laparoscopic versus open operating techniques across the two study periods on any analysis. The age and gender of the patients were similar over the two time periods. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic led to a marked reduction in the number of elective hernia repairs (especially incisional hernia surgery), with the effect most pronounced over the first three months of lockdown. Despite an overall reduction in total emergency operative figures, possibly due to more widespread use of non-operative strategies, there was still an increase in emergency inguinal hernia repairs during the lockdown. Further studies are needed to evaluate if the delays to elective operating will result in a long-term increase in the rates of emergency presentation.

A Comparison of the Differences in Postoperative Chronic Pain Between Video-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Approaches in Thoracic Surgery.

Background and objective In the last decade, there has been significant evolution in thoracic surgery with the advent of robotic surgery. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the incidence of postoperative chronic pain (for six months and beyond) in robotic and video-assisted approaches to analyze the long-term effects of the two different techniques. Methods This was a retrospective study involving 92 patients who underwent various thoracic operations between six months and two years preceding the study. Patients were classified into two groups based on the type of surgery: video-assisted (VATS) (n=51), and robotic-assisted (RATS) (n=41) thoracoscopic Surgery. We employed the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire to assess the utility values in terms of five quality-of-life measures (self-care, pain/discomfort, mobility, anxiety/depression, and usual activities). Results In the VATS group, the median age was 68 years while it was 57 years in the RATS group (p=0.001). A higher proportion of patients in the VATS group had anatomical lung resection (lobectomy) compared to the RATS group: 61.2 vs. 41.6% respectively (p=0.005). However, the groups were well-matched on other patient characteristics such as relevant past medical history, underlying disease pathology, and final disease staging (if malignant), with no significant differences between groups observed regarding these traits. In the VATS group, 62.7% of patients were pain-free at the time of the questionnaire-based evaluation compared to 51.2% in the RATS group. Additionally, 25.5% vs. 39% of patients had mild pain in the VATS and RATS groups respectively. Neither of these differences was statistically significant. Conclusion Patients who undergo RATS are known to have better recovery and less pain compared to those who have VATS in the immediate postoperative period. However, our results did not find RATS to be superior to VATS in terms of long-term pain. Additionally, robotic surgery is associated with higher hospital costs. In light of these findings, further comparative studies between the two approaches are recommended, while strategies to reduce postoperative pain and financial cost should continue to be explored.

Study protocol for resolution of organ injury in acute pancreatitis (RESORP): an observational prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Survivors of acute pancreatitis (AP) have shorter overall survival and increased incidence of new-onset cardiovascular, respiratory, liver and renal disease, diabetes mellitus and cancer compared with the general population, but the mechanisms that explain this are yet to be elucidated. Our aim is to characterise the precise nature and extent of organ dysfunction following an episode of AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observational prospective cohort study in a single centre comprising a University hospital with an acute and emergency receiving unit and clinical research facility. Participants will be adult patient admitted with AP. Participants will undergo assessment at recruitment, 3 months and 3 years. At each time point, multiple biochemical and/or physiological assessments to measure cardiovascular, respiratory, liver, renal and cognitive function, diabetes mellitus and quality of life. Recruitment was from 30 November 2017 to 31 May 2020; last follow-up measurements is due on 31 May 2023. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of new-onset type 3c diabetes mellitus during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures include: quality of life analyses (SF-36, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index); montreal cognitive assessment; organ system physiological performance; multiomics predictors of AP severity, detection of premature cellular senescence. In a nested cohort within the main cohort, individuals may also consent to multiparameter MRI scan, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing, cardiopulmonary exercise testing and pulse-wave analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received the following approvals: UK IRAS Number 178615; South-east Scotland Research Ethics Committee number 16/SS/0065. Results will be made available to AP survivors, caregivers, funders and other researchers. Publications will be open-access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03342716) and ISRCTN50581876; Pre-results.