Scoping review: The terminology used to describe major abdominal surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Major abdominal surgery (MAS) can have a profound impact on the patient but there is currently no consensus as to which surgical procedures constitute MAS. The main objective of this work is to ascertain the terminology used to describe MAS procedures and to apply these findings in order to propose a definition of MAS. METHODS: The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (R) ALL, Embase Classic and Embase (via OvidSP), Global Health (via OvidSP), Health Management Information Consortium (via OvidSP), APA PsycInfo (via OvidSP), PubMed and Web of Science. Original research articles, published between 1980 and April 26, 2022 that contained a description of MAS procedure were included in this study. Article screening and data extraction was undertaken independently by 3 authors. Content analysis was performed to identify key terminology used to describe MAS. RESULTS: Five thousand six hundred and sixty three articles were identified, of which 767 underwent full-text review and 312 were included in the scoping review. Content analysis resulted in 4 main categories: (1) pre-operative factors, (2) intraoperative factors, (3) operation-related factors, (4) post-operative factors. Operation-related factors was the predominant category (1137 references coded). The gastrointestinal resection made the vast majority of the references coded (591). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, the term "major abdominal surgery" should be defined as an intra-peritoneal operation with no primary involvement of the thorax, involving either luminal resection and/or resection of a solid organ associated with the gastrointestinal tract. However, further work is required to verify this definition using real world data.

Mastitis and Mammary Abscess Management Audit (MAMMA) in the UK and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre prospective audit was to describe the current practice in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on rates of surgical intervention. METHODS: This audit was conducted in two phases from August 2020 to August 2021; a phase 1 practice survey and a phase 2 prospective audit. Primary outcome measurements for phase 2 included patient management pathway characteristics and treatment type (medical/radiological/surgical). RESULTS: A total of 69 hospitals participated in phase 2 (1312 patients). The key findings were a high overall rate of incision and drainage (21.0 per cent) and a lower than anticipated proportion of ultrasound-guided aspiration of breast abscesses (61.0 per cent). Significant variations were observed regarding the rate of incision and drainage (range 0-100 per cent; P < 0.001) and the rate of needle aspiration (range 12.5-100 per cent; P < 0.001) between individual units. Overall, 22.5 per cent of patients were admitted for inpatient treatment, out of whom which 72.9 per cent were commenced on intravenous antibiotics. The odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment were significantly higher if patients presented at the weekend compared with a weekday (P ≤ 0.023). Breast specialists reviewed 40.9 per cent of all patients directly, despite the majority of patients (74.2 per cent) presenting within working hours on weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in practice exists in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses, with high rates of incision and drainage in certain regions of the UK. There is an urgent need for a national best-practice toolbox to minimize practice variation and standardize patient care.

Mastitis and breast abscess is a painful infection of the breast. It is an extremely common breast problem. One in three women can get this condition at some stage in their life. To treat a breast abscess, the pus inside should be drained out of the body. This can be done either by cutting into the breast using surgery or by inserting a fine needle using an ultrasonography scan (which uses ultrasound). Fine-needle drainage has the benefit that it does not require admission to hospital. Surgery can cause the breast to look misshapen. It is unknown which method is used more often in the UK and Ireland. The aim of this study was to describe how mastitis and breast abscesses are treated in the UK and Ireland. This study involved a survey of practice (phase 1) and collection of data, which are routinely recorded for these patients (phase 2). This study involved 69 hospitals and 1312 patient records. One in five women had an operation for a breast abscess. This was higher than expected. Six in 10 women had a pus drainage using a fine needle. The chance of having an operation depended on the hospital. Women that came to hospital at the weekend were almost twice as likely to have an operation. One in five women were admitted to hospital. The chances of that more than doubled if a woman came to hospital at the weekend. There are differences in treatment of mastitis and breast abscesses across the UK and Ireland. Changes need to be put in place to make access to treatment more equal.

Case report: Acute appendicitis in appendix duplication.

INTRODUCTION: Duplication of the appendix is a very rare presentation. According to the Cave-Wallbridge classification, there are three types of duplicate appendix. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 43 year old female presented with classical symptoms of acute appendicitis, with unremarkable inflammatory markers. The diagnosis was confirmed on pre-operative computer tomography (CT). During laparoscopy two tubular structures were identified: one arising from the tenia libera of the caecum adjacent to the terminal ileum and one retrocaecally at the confluence of the teniae. Both structures were excised using a laparoscopic linear stapler. Histopathological analysis demonstrated the accessory structure to be a microscopically unremarkable blind-ended tubular structure. The other specimen demonstrated acute gangrenous inflammation of the appendix. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged home the following day. DISCUSSION: Appendix duplication is rare; however, failure to recognise it in a patient with acute appendicitis could result in a retained source of sepsis, requiring subsequent re-exploration of the abdomen. The case presented here represents a Type B2 according to the Cave-Wallbridge classification and is the most susceptible to inadvertent error due to having appendixes in both typical and atypical anatomical locations. This case also highlights the probability of this diagnosis being missed on pre-operative CT. CONCLUSION: This case report presents a unique opportunity for surgical trainees to review intra-operative laparoscopic images of a duplicate appendix, both to allow them to recognise this pathology if encountered in the future, and to embed the importance of ruling it out with thorough intra-operative examination.

Bridging pre-surgical endocrine therapy for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the B-MaP-C study.

PURPOSE: The B-MaP-C study investigated changes to breast cancer care that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we present a follow-up analysis of those patients commenced on bridging endocrine therapy (BrET), whilst they were awaiting surgery due to reprioritisation of resources. METHODS: This multicentre, multinational cohort study recruited 6045 patients from the UK, Spain and Portugal during the peak pandemic period (Feb-July 2020). Patients on BrET were followed up to investigate the duration of, and response to, BrET. This included changes in tumour size to reflect downstaging potential, and changes in cellular proliferation (Ki67), as a marker of prognosis. RESULTS: 1094 patients were prescribed BrET, over a median period of 53 days (IQR 32-81 days). The majority of patients (95.6%) had strong ER expression (Allred score 7-8/8). Very few patients required expedited surgery, due to lack of response (1.2%) or due to lack of tolerance/compliance (0.8%). There were small reductions in median tumour size after 3 months' treatment duration; median of 4 mm [IQR - 20, 4]. In a small subset of patients (n = 47), a drop in cellular proliferation (Ki67) occurred in 26 patients (55%), from high (Ki67 ≥ 10%) to low (< 10%), with at least one month's duration of BrET. DISCUSSION: This study describes real-world usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy as necessitated by the pandemic. BrET was found to be tolerable and safe. The data support short-term (≤ 3 months) usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy. Longer-term use should be investigated in future trials.

Factors associated with infrainguinal bypass graft patency at 1-year; a retrospective analysis of a single centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with primary graft patency 1 year following open lower limb revascularisation (LLR) at a tertiary referral vascular service. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing infra-inguinal bypass surgery between January 2016 and May 2017 at a tertiary vascular centre (St Mary's Hospital, London) was performed. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, type of operation and post-operative anti-thrombotic strategy were collected. Quality of run-off score was assessed from pre-operative imaging. RESULTS: Seventy-seven cases were included in the analysis. Overall, the primary patency rate at 1-year was 63.6% (n = 49/77) and the secondary patency rate was 67.5% (n = 52/77). Independent variables with statistically significant inferior patency rates at 1-year were (1) bypasses with below knee targets (p = 0.0096), (2) chronic limb threatening ischaemia indication (p = 0.038), (3) previous ipsilateral revascularisation (p < 0.001) and (4) absence of hypertension history (p = 0.041). There was also a trend towards significance for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (p = 0.06). Independent variables with log-rank test p values of <0.1 were included in a Cox proportional hazards model. The only variable with a statistically significant impact on primary patency rates was previous open or endovascular ipsilateral revascularisation (HR 2.44 (1.04-5.7), p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: At 1-year follow-up, previous ipsilateral revascularisation was the most significant factor in affecting patency rates. Patients in this subgroup should therefore be deemed high-risk, which should be reflected in the informed consent and peri-operative management.

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study.

BACKGROUND: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated 'standard' or 'COVID-altered', in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. FINDINGS: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had 'COVID-altered' management. 'Bridging' endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2-9%) using 'NHS Predict'. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of 'COVID-altered' management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.

Surgical Tracheostomy Outcomes in COVID-19-Positive Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this case series was to demonstrate that surgical tracheostomy can be undertaken safely in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and that it is an effective weaning tool. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Single academic teaching hospital in London. METHODS: All adult patients admitted to the adult intensive care unit (AICU), diagnosed with severe COVID-19 infection and requiring surgical tracheostomy between the March 10, 2020, and May 1, 2020, were included. Data collection focused upon patient demographics, AICU admission data, tracheostomy-specific data, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty patients with COVID-19 underwent surgical tracheostomy. The main indication for tracheostomy was to assist in respiratory weaning. Patients had undergone mechanical ventilation for a median of 16.5 days prior to surgical tracheostomy. Tracheostomy remained in situ for a median of 12.5 days. Sixty percent of patients were decannulated at the end of the data collection period. There were no serious immediate or short-term complications. Surgical tracheostomy facilitated significant reduction in intravenous sedation at 48 hours after tracheostomy formation. There was no confirmed COVID-19 infection or reported sickness in the operating surgical or anesthetic teams. CONCLUSION: Surgical tracheostomy has been demonstrated to be an effective weaning tool in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

The B-MaP-C study: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 55,000 women in the United Kingdom are diagnosed with new breast cancer annually. Since emerging in December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting healthcare delivery worldwide. In response to the pandemic, multiple guidelines were issued to assist with rationalising breast cancer care. The primary aim of the B-MaP-C study is to audit and describe breast cancer management of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic against pre-COVID-19 management practice in the UK. The implications of changes to management will be determined and the impact of a COVID-19 diagnosis on the patient's breast cancer management will be determined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multi-centre collaborative audit of consecutive breast cancer patients undergoing treatment decisions during the acute and recovery phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. All patients with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer, whose treatment was decided in a multidisciplinary meeting from the 16th March 2020, are eligible for inclusion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is an audit ethical approval is not required. Each participating centre is required to register the study locally and obtain local governance approvals prior to commencement of data collection. Local audit data will be available to individual participating units for governance purposes. The results of the data analysis will be submitted for publication, as well as disseminated via the ABS newsletter and a webinar. All data will be presented at national and international conferences, circumstances permitting. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Each participating centre received local governance audit registration.

CRC COVID: Colorectal cancer services during COVID-19 pandemic. Study protocol for service evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has had an impact on the provision of colorectal cancer care. The aim of the CRC COVID study is to describe the changes in colorectal cancer services in the UK and USA in response to the pandemic and to understand the long-term impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study comprises 4 phases. Phase 1 is a survey of colorectal units that aims to evaluate adherences and deviations from the best practice guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Phase 2 is a monthly prospective data collection of service provision that aims to determine the impact of the service modifications on the long-term cancer specific outcomes compared to the national standards. Phase 3 aims to predict costs attributable to the modifications of the CRC services and additional resources required to treat patients whose treatment has been affected by the pandemic. Phase 4 aims to compare the impact of COVID-19 on the NHS and USA model of healthcare in terms of service provision and cost, and to propose a standardised model of delivering colorectal cancer services for future outbreaks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a service evaluation and does not require HRA Approval or Ethical Approval in the UK. Local service evaluation registration is required for each participating centre. In the USA, Ethical Approval was granted by the Research and Development Committee. The results of this study will be disseminated to stakeholders, submitted for peer review publications, conference presentations and circulated via social media. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Nil.

"SHOUT" to improve the quality of care delivered to patients with acute kidney injury at Great Western Hospital.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) affects up to 20% of all patients admitted to hospital, and is associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, increased healthcare costs, as well as long term risks of chronic kidney disease and end stage renal failure. The aim of this project was to improve the quality of care for patients with AKI admitted to the acute medical unit (AMU) at the Great Western Hospital (GWH). We assessed awareness and self reported confidence among physicians in our Trust, in addition to basic aspects of care relevant to AKI on our AMU. A multifaceted quality improvement strategy was developed, which included measures to improve awareness such as a Trust wide AKI awareness day, and reconfiguring the admission proforma on our AMU in order to enhance risk assessment, staging, and early response to AKI. Ancillary measures such as the dissemination of flashcards for lanyards containing core information were also used. Follow up assessments showed that foundation year one (FY1) doctors' self reported confidence in managing AKI increased from 2.8 to 4.2, as measured on a five point Likert scale (P=0.0003). AKI risk assessment increased from 13% to 57% (P=0.07) following a change in the admission proforma. Documentation of the diagnosis of AKI increased from 66% to 95% (P=0.038) among flagged patients. Documentation of urine dip results increased from 33% to 73% (P=0.01), in addition to a rise in appropriate referral for specialist input, although this was not statistically significant. Our results suggest that using the twin approaches of improving awareness, and small changes to systemic factors such as modification of the admission proforma, can lead to significant enhancements in the quality of care of patients with AKI.