RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Access to community rectoscopy might help to ease the burden on hospital services and reduce costs for the NHS. To assess this, a prospective multicentre observational phase I feasibility study of a novel digital rectoscope and telestration software for the triage of lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was undertaken. AIM: To determine if digital rectoscopy is feasible, acceptable, and clinically safe. DESIGN & SETTING: Evaluation of clinician case reports and patient questionnaires from patients recruited from five primary care centres. METHOD: Adults meeting 2-week wait (2WW) criteria for suspected lower GI cancer, suspected new diagnosis, or flare-up of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were enrolled. Examinations were performed by primary care practitioners using the LumenEye rectoscope. The CHiP platform allowed immediate remote review by secondary care. A prospective analysis was performed of patient and clinician experiences, diagnostic accuracy, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were recruited and 110 underwent the procedure (46 [42%] females and 64 [58%] males). No serious adverse events were reported. Eighty-two (74.5%) patients reported that examination was more comfortable than expected, while 104 (94.5%) felt the intervention was most convenient if delivered in the community. Clinicians were confident of their assessment in 100 (87.7%) examinations. Forty-eight (42.1%) patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or computed tomography virtual colonoscopy (CTVC). The overall sensitivity and specificity of LumenEye in identifying rectal pathology was 90.0% and 88.9%. It was 100% and 100% for cancer, and 83.3% and 97.8% for polyps. Following LumenEye examination, 19 (17.3%) patients were discharged, with projected savings of 11 305 GBP. CONCLUSION: Digital rectoscopy in primary care is safe, acceptable, and can reduce referrals. A phase III randomised controlled trial is indicated to define its utility in reducing the burden on hospital diagnostic services.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Perioperative nutrition modulation of gut microbiota is increasingly used as a strategy for reducing the infective complications of elective surgery. This meta-analysis assessed the effect of probiotic and synbiotic preparations on the incidence of postoperative sepsis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials that compared preoperative dosing of probiotics and synbiotics in patients undergoing elective general surgical procedures were included. The primary outcome measure was the postoperative sepsis rate. Pooled outcome measures were determined using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials totaling 962 patients were included in this analysis (304 received synbiotics and 182 received probiotics). The incidence of postoperative sepsis was reduced in the probiotic group vs the control (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.75; P = .003) and in the synbiotic group vs the control (pooled OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6; P = .002). However, subgroup analysis failed to identify a significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia, urinary tract infections, or wound infections in the postoperative phase for either treatment group. Synbiotics reduced the length of postoperative antibiotic use (weighted mean differences = -1.71; 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.21; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Probiotic and synbiotic nutrition strategies reduce the incidence of postoperative sepsis in the elective general surgery setting. These effects appear more pronounced with the use of synbiotics. High-powered, mechanistic studies are now required for the optimization of pro- and prebiotic regimens to further improve their efficacy.