Protocolized care pathways in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. The delivery of standardized pathways in this setting may have the potential to transform clinical care and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: The OVID SP versions of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched between January 1950 and October 2022. All randomized and non-randomized cohort studies comparing protocolized care streams with standard care protocols in adult patients (>18 years old) undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery with 30-day follow-up data were included. Studies were excluded if they reported on standardized care protocols in the trauma or elective setting. Outcomes assessed included length of stay, 30-day postoperative morbidity, 30-day postoperative mortality and 30-day readmission and reoperations rates. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies and RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 20 927 patients were identified, with 12 359 patients undergoing protocolized care pathways and 8568 patients undergoing standard care pathways. Thirteen unique protocolized pathways were identified, with a median of eight components (range 6-15), with compliance of 24-100%. Protocolized care pathways were associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to standard care pathways (mean difference -2.47, 95% c.i. -4.01 to -0.93, P = 0.002). Protocolized care pathways had no impact on postoperative mortality (OR 0.87, 95% c.i. 0.41 to 1.87, P = 0.72). A reduction in specific postoperative complications was observed, including postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.42 95% c.i. 0.24 to 0.73, P = 0.002) and surgical site infection (OR 0.34, 95% c.i. 0.21 to 0.55, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Protocolized care pathways in the emergency setting currently lack standardization, with variable components and low compliance; however, despite this they are associated with short-term clinical benefits.

Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14th September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC. CONCLUSIONS: None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant.

IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer.

AIM: There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.

Patient and multidisciplinary team perspectives on watch and wait in rectal cancer.

This article adopts a multidisciplinary approach, including surgery, oncology, radiology and patient perspectives, to discuss the key points of debate surrounding a watch and wait approach. In an era of shared decision-making, discussion of watch and wait as an option in the context of complete clinical response is appropriate, although it is not the gold standard treatment. Key challenges are the difficulty in assessing for a complete clinical response, prediction of recurrence and access to timely diagnostics for surveillance. Salvage surgery has good results if regrowth is detected early but does have imperfect outcomes, with only a 90% salvage rate. Good communication with patients about the risks and alternatives is essential. Patients undergoing watch and wait should ideally be enrolled in prospective registries or clinical trials.

Formation of a conceptual framework during the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for early gastrointestinal recovery: phase I of the PRO-diGi study.

AIM: Patients admitted to hospital for abdominal surgery often experience gastrointestinal dysfunction. Many studies have reported outcomes following gastrointestinal dysfunction, yet there is no unified definition of recovery or a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). The first stage of PROM development requires formation of a conceptual framework to identify key themes to patients. The aim of this study was to utilize semistructured interviews to identify core themes and concepts relevant to patients to facilitate development of a conceptual framework. METHOD: Adult patients admitted to hospital for major gastrointestinal, urological or gynaecological surgery, in an emergency or elective setting, were eligible to participate. Patients treated nonoperatively for small bowel obstruction were also eligible. Interviews were conducted by telephone, audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using NVivo software by two researchers and reviewed by lay members of the steering group. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Ethical approval was gained prior to interviews (21/WA/0231). RESULTS: Twenty nine interviews were completed (17 men, median age 64 years) across three specialties (20 gastrointestinal, six gynaecological, three urological). Two overarching themes of 'general recovery' and 'gastrointestinal symptoms' were identified. General recovery included three themes: 'life impact', 'mental impact', including anxiety, and 'physical impact', including fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms included three themes: 'abdominal symptoms' such as pain, 'diet and appetite' and 'expulsory function', such as stool frequency. A total of 18 gastrointestinal symptoms were identified during patient recovery-many of which lasted several weeks following discharge. CONCLUSION: This study reports a range of gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal symptoms experienced by patients during early gastrointestinal recovery. Identified symptoms have been synthesized into a conceptual framework to enable development of a definitive PROM for early gastrointestinal recovery.

Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers potential advantages over traditional surgical approaches. This study aimed to assess outcomes from a district general hospital (DGH) robotic colorectal programme against published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The robotic programme was established following simulator, dry/wet lab training, and proctoring. We performed a case series analysing technical, patient, and oncological outcomes extracted from a prospective database of colorectal RAS cases (2015-2022). A registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022300773; PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE) of single-centre colorectal series from established robotic centres (n>200 cases) was completed and compared to local data using descriptive summary statistics. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-two RAS cases were performed including 122 anterior resections, 56 APERs, 19 rectopexies, and 15 Hartmann's procedures. The median duration was 325 (IQR 265-400) min. Blood loss was < 100 ml in 97% of cases with 2 (0.9%) cases converted to open. Complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) occurred in 19 (8%) patients, with 3 (1.3%) deaths in < 30 days. Length of stay was 7 (IQR 5-11) days. In 169 rectal cancer cases, there were 9 (5.3%) cases with a positive circumferential or distal margin and lymph node yield of 17 (IQR 13-24). A systematic review of 1648 abstracts identified 13 studies from established robotic centres, totaling 4930 cases, with technical, patient, and oncological outcomes comparable to our own case series. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from our robotic colorectal programme at a UK DGH are comparable with the largest published case series from world-renowned centres. Training and proctoring together with rolling audit must accompany the expansion of robotic surgery to safeguard outcomes.

A multicentre, prospective cohort study of handsewn versus stapled intracorporeal anastomosis for robotic hemicolectomy.

AIM: Robotic right hemicolectomy is gaining in popularity due to the recognized technical benefits associated with the robotic platform. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the optimal anastomotic technique in this cohort of patients, namely stapled or handsewn intra- or extra-corporeal anastomosis. The ergonomic benefit associated with the robotic platform lends itself to intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of stapled versus handsewn ICA. METHOD: A multicentre prospective cohort study was undertaken across four high-volume robotic centres in France between September 2018 and December 2020. All adult patients undergoing an elective robotic right hemicolectomy with an ICA performed and a minimum postoperative follow-up of 30 days were included. The primary endpoint of our study was anastomotic leak within 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients underwent robotic right hemicolectomy: 92 (63.8%) had a stapled ICA and 52 (36.1%) a handsewn ICA. The operative indication was adenocarcinoma in 90% with a stapled ICA compared with 62% in the handsewn ICA group (p < 0.001). The overall operating time was longer in the handsewn ICA group compared with the stapled ICA group (219 min vs. 193 min; p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3% in stapled ICA and 3.8% in handsewn ICA (p = 1.00). There was no difference in the rate or severity of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: ICA robotic hemicolectomy is technically safe and is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak overall and equivalent clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

A novel bowel rehabilitation programme after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the BOREAL pilot study.

AIM: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) following sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer has a high prevalence, with an impact on long-term bowel dysfunction and quality of life. We designed the bowel rehabilitation programme (BOREAL) as a proactive strategy to assess and treat patients with LARS. The BOREAL programme consists of a stepwise approach of escalating treatments: medical management (steps 0-1), pelvic floor physiotherapy, biofeedback and transanal irrigation (step 2), sacral nerve neuromodulation (step 3), percutaneous endoscopic caecostomy and anterograde enema (step 4) and definitive colostomy (step 5). METHODS: A pilot study was undertaken to assess the feasibility of collecting LARS data routinely with the parallel implementation of the BOREAL programme. All patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between February 2017 and March 2019 were included. LARS was assessed using the LARS score and the Wexner Faecal Incontinence score at 30 days and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postoperatively. A good functional result was considered to be a combined LARS score <20 and/or a Wexner score <4. RESULTS: In all, 137 patients were included. Overall compliance with the BOREAL programme was 72.9%. Major LARS decreased from 48% at 30 days postoperatively to 12% at 12 months, with a concomitant improvement in overall good function from 33% to 77%, P < 0.001. The majority of patients (n = 106, 77%) required medical management of their LARS. CONCLUSION: The BOREAL programme demonstrates the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of implementing a responsive, stepwise programme for detecting and treating LARS.

A phase III randomized trial evaluating chemotherapy followed by pelvic reirradiation versus chemotherapy alone as preoperative treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer - GRECCAR 15 trial protocol.

AIM: Treatment strategies in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are complex and need to be balanced against previous treatments received for the primary rectal cancer. Radiotherapy is an important component of treatment in LRRC. However, there is little high-quality evidence on the role of reirradiation in this cohort. Therefore, the aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by pelvic reirradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone on the rate of curative surgery (R0) in previously irradiated patients with LRRC. METHOD: GRECCAR 15 is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, outcome assessor-blinded, superiority randomized controlled phase III clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by pelvic reirradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with LRRC previously irradiated for the primary cancer. Adult patients (>18 years old) with a histologically proven resectable LRRC, who have previously received pelvic radiotherapy for their primary rectal cancer at a dose of 25-50.4 Gy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of <2 will be eligible to participate. The pelvic reirradiation will consist of conformational intensity-modulated external irradiation, delivering a dose of 30.6 Gy with concomitant chemotherapy using capecitabine. The primary outcome of this trial is the R0 resection rate. Overall, GRECCAR 15 aims to recruit 186 patients to detect an absolute difference of 20% in the R0 resection rate with 80% power and 5% two-sided significance level. CONCLUSION: The GRECCAR 15 trial is the first, definitive, phase III trial to investigate reirradiation in LRRC. The results of this trial will inform definitively the neoadjuvant treatment strategy in previously irradiated patients and assess whether there is any associated benefit of reirradiation in combination with induction chemotherapy in improving R0 resection rates.

Joint ACPGBI and The Duke's Club statement on colonoscopy training.

Colorectal surgeons across the UK currently undertake a large proportion of routine diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in most NHS Trusts [1]. Meanwhile, the new UK General Surgical curriculum now includes an indicative requirement of 200 diagnostic colonoscopies for surgical trainees who have declared a colorectal subspecialty interest (hereafter termed 'colorectal trainees'), indicating the JCST's (Joint Committee on Surgical Training) commitment to colonoscopy training. However, several studies have reported a marked deficiency in colonoscopy training opportunities and accreditation for surgical trainees compared with gastroenterology trainees [2-4].

The North East Multispecialty Delphi Project - Collaboration Between Trainee Research Networks.

Trainee research collaborative networks have revolutionized how trainees participate in clinical research. Three North East of England trainee-led research groups, the Intensive Care and Anesthesia Research Network of North East Trainees (INCARNNET), the Northern Surgical Trainees Research Association (NOSTRA) in General Surgery and the Collaborative Orthopedic Research Network (CORNET) in Trauma and Orthopedics have joined, creating a multispecialty collaborative. This multispecialty collaborative undertook a two-phase research Delphi, between November 2017 and June 2018, to identify key research questions. This Delphi identified three high priority research questions common to the three specialties: what is the impact of diabetes control on perioperative outcomes, what factors affect theater efficiency, and how to prevent postoperative chest infection following emergency surgery? These research questions will be developed into collaborative projects. The Delphi also identified specialty-specific questions to be taken forward as research projects by each network.

LAP-VEGaS Practice Guidelines for Reporting of Educational Videos in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Joint Trainers and Trainees Consensus Statement.

OBJECTIVE: Consensus statement by an international multispecialty trainers and trainees expert committee on guidelines for reporting of educational videos in laparoscopic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Instructive laparoscopy videos with appropriate exposition could be ideal for initial training in laparoscopic surgery, but there are no guidelines for video annotation or procedural educational and safety evaluation. METHODS: Delphi questionnaire of 45 statements prepared by a steering group and voted on over 2 rounds by committee members using an electronic survey tool. Committee selection design included representative surgical training experts worldwide across different laparoscopic specialties, including general surgery, lower and upper gastrointestinal surgery, gynecology and urology, and a proportion of aligned surgical trainees. RESULTS: All 33 committee members completed both the first and the second round of the Delphi questionnaire related to 7 major domains: Video Introduction/Authors' information; Patient Details; Procedure Description; Procedure Outcome; Associated Educational Content; Peer Review; and Use in Educational Curriculae. The 17 statements that did not reach at least 80% agreement after the first round were revised and returned into the second round. The committee consensus approved 37 statements to at least an 82% agreement. CONCLUSION: Consensus guidelines on how to report laparoscopic surgery videos for educational purposes have been developed. We anticipate that following our guidelines could help to improve video quality.These reporting guidelines may be useful as a standard for reviewing videos submitted for publication or conference presentation.

The Outcomes and Patterns of Treatment Failure After Surgery for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes and patterns of treatment failure of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration surgery for recurrent rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the management of rectal cancer, local recurrence still occurs. For appropriately selected patients, pelvic exenteration surgery can achieve long-term disease control. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases of 5 high volume institutions for pelvic exenteration surgery were reviewed and data combined. We assessed the combined endpoints of overall 5-year survival, cancer-specific 5-year mortality, local recurrence, and the development of metastatic disease. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-three patients who had undergone surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer were identified. Five-year cancer-specific survival for patients with a complete (R0) resection is 44%, which was achieved in 59% of patients. For those with R1 and R2 resections, the 5-year survival was 26% and 10%, respectively. Radical resection required sacrectomy in 170 patients (32%), and total cystectomy in 105 patients (20%). Treatment failure included local recurrence alone in 75 patients (14%) and systemic metastases with or without local recurrence in 226 patients (42%). Chemoradiotherapy before exenteration was associated with a significant (P < 0.05) improvement in overall 5-year cancer-specific survival for those patients with an R0 resection. Postoperative chemotherapy did not alter outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: R0 resection of the pelvic recurrence is the most significant factor affecting overall and disease-free survival. The surgery is complex and often highly morbid, and where possible patients should be given perioperative chemoradiotherapy. Further investigations are required to determine the role of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Systematic review of health-related quality of life issues in locally recurrent rectal cancer.

The standardization of surgical techniques supplemented with appropriate neoadjuvant chemoradiation has led to the decline in local recurrence rates of rectal cancer (LRRC) from 25-50% to 5-10%. The outcomes reported for surgical intervention in LRRC is encouraging, however, a number of controversies exist especially in the ultra-advanced and palliative setting. Incorporating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in this field could supplement traditional clinical endpoints in assessing the effectiveness of surgical intervention in this cohort. This review aimed to identify the HRQOL themes that might be relevant to patients with LRRC. A systematic review was undertaken to identify all studies reporting HRQoL in LRRC. Each study was evaluated with regards to its design and statistical methodology. A meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken to identify relevant HRQoL themes. A total of 14 studies were identified, with 501 patients, with 80% of patients undergoing surgery. HRQoL was the primary endpoint in eight studies. Eight themes were identified: physical, psychological and social impact, symptoms, financial and occupational impact, relationships with others, communication with healthcare professionals and sexual function. The impact on HRQoL is multifactorial and wide ranging, with a number of issues identified that are not included in current measures. These issues must be incorporated into the assessment of HRQoL in LRRC through the development of a validated, disease-specific tool.