Similar success rate in proximal and distal colonic stent placement: a retrospective multi-center study.

OBJECTIVES: Stenting of malignant colon obstruction is used as a bridge to surgery or as an alternative to surgical colostomy in a palliative setting. Current guidelines recommend stent placement as the first line of treatment in colonic obstruction in both curative and palliative settings. However, it is unclear whether the location of the malignant obstruction influences the outcome of the stenting procedure. The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of colonic stents between proximal and distal colonic strictures with regard to technical and clinical success and the risk of adverse events. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective cohort was composed of patients who underwent a colonic stent placement at two tertiary hospitals between 2013 and 2021. The technical and clinical outcome, stent type used, duration of post-procedural hospital stay and complications were noted. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients who underwent colonic stenting were identified. 41 patients underwent stent placement in the proximal colon and 107 patients underwent a distal stent placement. There was no difference in technical success (100% vs 96.3%, p = 0.209), clinical success (97.0% vs 89.6%, p = 0.199) or complications (24.4% vs 37.4%, p = 0,135). CONCLUSION: Technical success and clinical success rates are high and do not differ between stent locations. There is no significant difference in complication rates between proximal and distal colonic stents.

Operative blood loss adversely affects short and long-term outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the impact of operative blood loss on short and long-term outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed, from inception to the 10th of August 2020. A comprehensive literature search was performed on the 10th of August 2020 of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Only studies reporting on operative blood loss and postoperative short term or long-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included, reporting on 59,813 patients. Increased operative blood loss was associated with higher morbidity, for blood loss greater than 150-350 ml (odds ratio [OR] 2.09, p < 0.001) and > 500 ml (OR 2.29, p = 0.007). Anastomotic leak occurred more frequently for blood loss above a range of 50-100 ml (OR 1.14, p = 0.007), 250-300 ml (OR 2.06, p < 0.001), and 400-500 ml (OR 3.15, p < 0.001). Postoperative ileus rate was higher for blood loss > 100-200 ml (OR 1.90, p = 0.02). Surgical site infections were more frequent above 200-500 ml (OR 1.96, p = 0.04). Hospital stay was increased for blood loss > 150-200 ml (OR 1.63, p = 0.04). Operative blood loss was significantly higher in patients that suffered morbidity (mean difference [MD] 133.16 ml, p < 0.001) or anastomotic leak (MD 69.56 ml, p = 0.02). In the long term, increased operative blood loss was associated with worse overall survival above a range of 200-500 ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, p < 0.001), and worse recurrence-free survival above 200-400 ml (HR 1.33, p = 0.01). Increased blood loss was associated with small bowel obstruction caused by colorectal cancer recurrence for blood loss higher than 400 ml (HR 1.97, p = 0.03) and 800 ml (HR 3.78, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Increased operative blood loss may adversely impact short term and long-term postoperative outcomes. Measures should be taken to minimize operative blood loss during colorectal cancer surgery. Due to the uncertainty of evidence identified, further research, with standardised methodology, is required on this important subject.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing energy devices used in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare energy devices used for intraoperative hemostasis during colorectal surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane were searched from inception to August 11th 2021. Intraoperative outcomes were operative blood loss, operative time, conversion to open, conversion to another energy source. Postoperative outcomes were mortality, overall complications, minor complications and major complications, wound complications, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, time to first defecation, day 1 and 3 drainage volume, duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, reporting on 680 participants, comparing conventional hemostasis, LigaSure™, Thunderbeat® and Harmonic®. Harmonic® had fewer overall complications compared to conventional hemostasis. Operative blood loss was less with LigaSure™ (mean difference [MD] = 24.1 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 46.54 to - 1.58 ml) or Harmonic® (MD = 24.6 ml; 95% CI - 42.4 to - 6.7 ml) compared to conventional techniques. Conventional hemostasis ranked worst for operative blood loss with high probability (p = 0.98). LigaSure™, Harmonic® or Thunderbeat® resulted in a significantly shorter mean operative time by 42.8 min (95% CI - 53.9 to - 31.5 min), 28.3 min (95% CI - 33.6 to - 22.6 min) and 26.1 min (95% CI - 46 to - 6 min), respectively compared to conventional electrosurgery. LigaSure™ resulted in a significantly shorter mean operative time than Harmonic® by 14.5 min (95% CI 1.9-27 min) and ranked first for operative time with high probability (p = 0.97). LigaSure™ and Harmonic® resulted in a significantly shorter mean duration of hospital stay compared to conventional electrosurgery of 1.3 days (95% CI - 2.2 to - 0.4) and 0.5 days (95% CI - 1 to - 0.1), respectively. LigaSure™ ranked as best for hospital stay with high probability (p = 0.97). Conventional hemostasis was associated with more wound complications than Harmonic® (odds ratio [OR] = 0.27; CI 0.08-0.92). Harmonic® ranked best with highest probability (p = 0.99) for wound complications. No significant differences between energy devices were identified for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LigaSure™, Thunderbeat® and Harmonic® may be advantageous for reducing operative blood loss, operative time, overall complications, wound complications, and duration of hospital stay compared to conventional techniques. The energy devices result in comparable perioperative outcomes and no device is superior overall. However, included RCTs were limited in number and size, and data were not available to compare all energy devices for all outcomes of interest.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome.

AIM: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. METHOD: This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. CONCLUSION: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

Establishing core outcome sets for gastrointestinal recovery in studies of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction: protocol for a nested methodological study.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal recovery describes the restoration of normal bowel function in patients with bowel disease. This may be prolonged in two common clinical settings: postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction. Improving gastrointestinal recovery is a research priority but researchers are limited by variation in outcome reporting across clinical studies. This protocol describes the development of core outcome sets for gastrointestinal recovery in the contexts of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction. METHOD: An international Steering Group consisting of patient and clinician representatives has been established. As overlap between clinical contexts is anticipated, both outcome sets will be co-developed and may be combined to form a common output with disease-specific domains. The development process will comprise three phases, including definition of outcomes relevant to postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction from systematic literature reviews and nominal-group stakeholder discussions; online-facilitated Delphi surveys via international networks; and a consensus meeting to ratify the final output. A nested study will explore if the development of overlapping outcome sets can be rationalized. DISSEMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION: The final output will be registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. A multi-faceted, quality improvement campaign for the reporting of gastrointestinal recovery in clinical studies will be launched, targeting international professional and patient groups, charitable organizations and editorial committees. Success will be explored via an updated systematic review of outcomes 5 years after registration of the core outcome set.

Preoperative bowel stimulation prior to ileostomy closure to restore bowel function more quickly and improve postoperative outcomes: a systematic review.

AIM: Closure of a diverting ileostomy following restorative surgery is often associated with significant short-term morbidity and variable long-term bowel function. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate if preoperative stimulation of the defunctioned bowel restores bowel function more quickly after ileostomy closure and improves postoperative outcomes when compared with standard preoperative care. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies evaluating preoperative bowel stimulation in patients with a temporary ileostomy after low anterior resection or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, regardless of their design, publication type or language. Study selection, data extraction and study assessment were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Study results were synthesized narratively. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Eight studies involving a total of 267 participants were included. The studies had a moderate to high risk of bias and were of varying methodological quality. Preoperative stimulation of the defunctioned bowel reduced the time to postoperative restoration of bowel function and the length of hospital stay when compared with standard preoperative care. Other functional outcomes and postoperative complication rates were similar to those of standard preoperative care. The overall quality of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Despite these promising early results, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend routine implementation of preoperative bowel stimulation in clinical practice. Nevertheless, there is no evidence suggesting that the intervention worsens outcomes or is unsafe, paving the way for rigorous assessment of effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness within the context of well-designed clinical trials.

Optimizing collaborator recruitment and maintaining engagement via social media during large multicentre studies: lessons learned from the National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction (NASBO).

AIM: The National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction was a UK-wide study active in early 2017. A Twitter© account was used to interact with collaborators and the public throughout the study to assess whether the use of social media improved study engagement and to establish which Tweet signature styles achieved the highest levels of reach and engagement. METHOD: Twitter© analytics for @NASBO2017 covering June 2016-May 2017 were reviewed. The number of impressions, Tweet engagements and the engagement rate were analysed according to study stage. RESULTS: A total of 176 Tweets were made over the study period. The median number of impressions achieved by a Tweet was 533 (75-2709). 3863 engagements were made with National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction Tweets with a median number of 10 (0-159) per Tweet. The average overall Tweet engagement rate was 3.3% (0%-14.2%). Tweets with most impressions either used images or tagged institutions (e.g. Royal Colleges, professional bodies). The number of impressions and engagement with the Tweets increased over the study period, due to the incremental growth of the National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction Twitter© account and the identification of successful Tweet styles. CONCLUSIONS: Social media provided a major contribution to a successful concerted policy of maintaining collaborator engagement during the National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction. The use of images and videos and tagging of relevant professional bodies aided the reach and engagement of each Tweet. These data can be used to inform engagement strategies for future collaborative projects.

Current management of small bowel obstruction in the UK: results from the National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction clinical practice survey.

AIM: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction (NASBO) is a collaboration between trainees and specialty associations to improve the care of patients with SBO through national clinical audit. The aim of this study was to define current consultant practice preferences in the management of SBO in the UK. METHOD: A survey was designed to assess practice preferences of consultant surgeons. The anonymous survey captured demographics, indications for surgery or conservative management, use of investigations including water-soluble contrast agents (WSCA), use of laparoscopy and nutritional support strategies. The questionnaire underwent two pilot rounds prior to dissemination via the NASBO network. RESULTS: A total of 384 responses were received from 131 NASBO participating units (overall response rate 29.2%). Abdominal CT and serum urea and electrolytes were considered essential initial investigations by more than 80% of consultants. Consensus was demonstrated on indications for early surgery and conservative management. Three hundred and thirty-eight (88%) respondents would consider use of WSCA; of these, 328 (97.1%) would use it in adhesive SBO. Two hundred (52.1%) consultants considered a laparoscopic approach when operating for SBO. Oral nutritional supplements were favoured in operatively managed patients by 259 (67.4%) respondents compared with conservatively managed patients (186 respondents, 48.4%). CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrates consensus on imaging requirements and indications for early surgery in the management of SBO. Significant variation exists around awareness of the need for nutritional support in patients with SBO, and on strategies to achieve this support.

Variation in practice of pouch surgery in England - using SWORD data to cut to the chase and justify centralization.

AIM: Increasing scrutiny on both individual and unit outcomes after surgical procedures is now expected. In the field of inflammatory bowel disease, this is particularly pertinent for outcomes after ileoanal pouch surgery. METHOD: The Surgical Workload and Outcomes Research Database (SWORD) relies on administrative data derived from Hospital Episode Statistics collected in England. The platform was interrogated for pouch procedures undertaken in England between April 2009 and December 2016 to assess national caseload and, between April 2012 and December 2016, to assess variation in caseload and outcomes after pouch surgery. RESULTS: In England there is a suggestion that numbers of pouch procedures may be decreasing. Over 80% of Trusts offering pouch surgery do so at very low volume with less than five procedures per year. There is also a clear phenomenon of the occasional pouch surgeon with 126 surgeons undertaking just one pouch operation during the study period of almost 5 years. Laparoscopic practice varies but 60% of pouches overall were done via an open approach. Mean length of stay was 10.1 days and average 30-day readmission rates were 27.4%. Outside London there appears to be an increasing trend for higher volume units to do more adult pouch procedures and lower volume units to do fewer. CONCLUSION: Low volume units and occasional pouch surgeons present a strong argument for centralization of pouch surgery. Data from England outside London suggest that this may already be happening.

Review of current practice and outcomes following ileoanal pouch surgery: lessons learned from the Ileoanal Pouch Registry and the 2017 Ileoanal Pouch Report.

AIM: The second Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) Ileoanal Pouch Registry (IPR) report was released in July 2017 following a first report in 2012. This article provides a summary of data derived from the most recent IPR report (2017 Ileoanal Pouch Report. https://www.acpgbi.org.uk/content/uploads/2016/07/Ileoanal-Pouch-Report-2017-FINAL.compressed.pdf). METHOD: The IPR is an electronic database of voluntarily submitted data including patient demographics, disease, intra-operative and postoperative factors submitted by consultant surgeons or delegates. Data up to 31 March 2017 have been analysed for this report. RESULTS: A total of 5352 pouch operations were carried out at 76 UK and four European centres by 154 surgeons over four decades. Recorded procedures have increased over time but data submission is voluntary and underestimates actual volume. Significant variation exists in institutional volume; 73 centres entered data on patients undergoing pouch surgery during the past 5 years. Of these, 44 centres have submitted ≤ 10 cases, with 10 centres submitting one patient and nine centres two cases. Since 2013, minimal access surgery has been employed in 54% of cases. Rectal dissection was undertaken in the total mesorectal excision plane in 69%. J-pouch configuration was used in 99% of cases and 90% of pouch-anal anastomoses were performed using a stapled technique. Including all years, the IPR rate of pelvic sepsis was 9.4% and the rate of pouch failure was 4.7%. CONCLUSION: The IPR holds the largest voluntary repository of data on ileoanal pouch surgery. The second report from the IPR records marked refinements in surgical technique over time but also highlights wide variation in institutional caseload and outcome across the UK.

The colorectal surgeon's personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision.

AIM: Colorectal surgeons regularly make the decision to anastomose, defunction or form an end colostomy when performing rectal surgery. This study aimed to define personality traits of colorectal surgeons and explore any influence of such traits on the decision to perform a rectal anastomosis. METHOD: Fifty attendees of The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2016 Conference participated. After written consent, all underwent personality testing: alexithymia (inability to understand emotions), type of thinking process (intuitive versus rational) and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness). Questions were answered regarding anastomotic decisions in various clinical scenarios and results analysed to reveal any influence of the surgeon's personality on anastomotic decision. RESULTS: Participants were: male (86%), consultants (84%) and based in England (68%). Alexithymia was low (4%) with 81% displaying intuitive thinking (reflex, fast). Participants scored higher in emotional stability (ability to remain calm) and conscientiousness (organized, methodical) compared with population norms. Personality traits influenced the next anastomotic decision if: surgeons had recently received criticism at a departmental audit meeting; were operating with an anaesthetist that was not their regular one; or there had been no anastomotic leaks in their patients for over 1 year. CONCLUSION: Colorectal surgeons have speciality relevant personalities that potentially influence the important decision to anastomose and could explain the variation in surgical practice across the UK. Future work should explore these findings in other countries and any link of personality traits to patient-related outcomes.

Patients with perianal Crohn's fistulas experience delays in accessing anti-TNF therapy due to slow recognition, diagnosis and integration of specialist services: lessons learned from three referral centres.

AIM: Crohn's anal fistula should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. There is no clearly defined 'patient pathway' from presentation to treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the patient route from presentation with symptomatic Crohn's anal fistula to starting anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. METHOD: Case note review was undertaken at three hospitals with established inflammatory bowel disease services. Patients with Crohn's anal fistula presenting between 2010 and 2015 were identified through clinical coding and local databases. Baseline demographics were captured. Patient records were interrogated to identify route of access, and clinical contacts during the patient pathway. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included in the study, of whom 54 (68%) had an established diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD). Median time from presentation to anti-TNF therapy was 204 days (174 vs 365 days for existing and new diagnosis of CD, respectively; P = 0.019). The mean number of surgical outpatient attendances, operations and MRI scans per patient was 1.03, 1.71 and 1.03, respectively. Patients attended a mean of 1.49 medical clinics. Seton insertion was the most common procedure, accounting for 48.6% of all operations. Where care episodes ('clinical events per 30 days') were infrequent this correlated with prolongation of the pathway (r = -0.87; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study highlights two key challenges in the treatment pathway: (i) delays in diagnosis of underlying CD in patients with anal fistula and (ii) the pathway to anti-TNF therapy is long, suggesting issues with service design and delivery. These should be addressed to improve patient experience and outcome.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease.

AIM: There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology. METHODS: Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines. RESULTS: All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

Surgical management of fistulating perianal Crohn's disease: a UK survey.

AIM: Around one-third of patients with Crohn's disease are affected by Crohn's fistula-in-ano (pCD). It typically follows a chronic course and patients undergo long-term medical and surgical therapy. We set out to describe current surgical practice in the management of pCD in the UK. METHOD: A survey of surgical management of pCD was designed by an expert group of colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists. This assessed acute, elective, multidisciplinary and definitive surgical management. A pilot of the questionnaire was undertaken at the 2015 meeting of the Digestive Disease Federation. The survey was refined and distributed nationally through the trainee collaborative networks. RESULTS: National rollout obtained responses from 133 of 179 surgeons approached (response rate 74.3%). At first operation, 32% of surgeons would always consider drainage of sepsis and 31.1% would place a draining seton. At first elective operation, 66.6% would routinely insert of draining seton, and 84.4% would avoid cutting seton. An IBD multidisciplinary team was available to 87.6% of respondents, although only 25.1% routinely discussed pCD patients. Anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha therapy was routinely considered by 64.2%, although 44.2% left medical management to gastroenterologists. Common definitive procedures were removal of the seton only (70.7%), fistulotomy (57.1%), advancement flap (38.9%), fistula plug (36.4%) and ligation of intersphincteric track (LIFT) procedure (31.8%). Indications for diverting stoma or proctectomy were intractable sepsis, incontinence and poor quality of life. CONCLUSION: This survey has demonstrated areas of common practice, but has also highlighted divergent practice including choices of definitive surgery and multimodal management. Practical guidelines are required to support colorectal surgeons in the UK.

Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus exercise on surgical management of fistulating perianal Crohn's disease.

AIM: Management of fistulating perianal Crohn's disease (fpCD) is a significant challenge for a colorectal surgeon. A recent survey of surgical practice in this condition showed variation in management approaches. As a result we set out to devise recommendations for practice for UK colorectal surgeons. METHOD: Results from a national survey were used to devise a set of potential consensus statements. Consultant colorectal surgeons were invited to participate in the exercise via the previous survey and the mailing list of the professional society. Iterative voting was performed on each statement using a five-point Likert scale and electronic voting, with opportunity for discussion and refinement between each vote. Consensus was defined as > 80% agreement. RESULTS: Seventeen surgeons and two patient representatives voted upon 51 statements. Consensus was achieved on 39 items. Participants advocated a patient-centred approach by a colorectal specialist, within strong multidisciplinary teamworking. The use of anti-TNFα therapy is advocated. Where definitive surgical techniques are considered they should be carefully selected to avoid adverse impact on function. Ano/rectovaginal fistulas should be managed by specialists in fistulating disease. Stoma or proctectomy could be discussed earlier in a patient's treatment pathway to improve choice, as they may improve quality of life. CONCLUSION: This consensus provides principles and guidance for best practice in managing patients with fpCD.

A national patient and public colorectal research agenda: integration of consumer perspectives in bowel disease through early consultation.

AIM: There is a recognized need to include the views of patients and the public in prioritizing health research. This study aimed: (i) to explore patients' views on colorectal research; and (ii) to prioritize research topics with patients and the public. METHOD: In phase 1, 12 charitable organizations and patient groups with an interest in bowel disease were invited to attend a consultation exercise. Participants were briefed on 25 colorectal research topics prioritized by members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Focus groups were conducted and discussions were recorded with field notes. Analysis was conducted using principles of thematic analysis. In phase 2, a free public consultation was undertaken. Participants were recruited from newspaper advertisements, were briefed on the same research topics and were asked to rate the importance of each on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the topics. Univariable linear regression compared recorded demographic details with mean topic scores. RESULTS: Focus groups were attended by 12 patients who highlighted the importance of patient-centred information for trial recruitment and when selecting outcome measures. Some 360 people attended the public consultation, of whom 277 (77%) were recruited. Participants rated 'What is the best way to treat early cancer in the back passage?' highest, with 227 (85%) scoring it 4 or 5. There was no correlation between participant demographics and mean topic scores. CONCLUSION: The present study prioritized a colorectal research agenda with the input of patients and the public. Further research is required to translate this agenda into real improvements in patient care.