Development Methodology, Availability, and Implementation of Core Outcome Sets in Pediatric Surgery.

Core outcome sets (COSs) provide a mechanism to guide researchers and clinicians when deciding which outcomes to report in research related to a specific clinical condition or intervention. The intention behind creating a COS for a specific condition is to improve the reporting of important and meaningful outcomes, thus enhancing the relevance of research. Additionally, a COS helps facilitate comparison of outcomes between different clinical studies and reduces research waste. In this paper, we discuss the availability of COSs in the field of pediatric general surgery. We provide an overview of the methodologies used to develop a COS, including common pitfalls, and finally, we discuss COS uptake and implementation. An understanding of all these aspects is important for researchers considering developing a new COS and for those reading research where a COS has been developed or used within a study. Failure to adequately appreciate the nuances of COS development, in particular, risks fundamental flaws that may jeopardize COS validity and subsequently hinder COS uptake and implementation.

Impact of rectal dissection technique on primary-school-age outcomes for a British and Irish cohort of children with Hirschsprung disease.

BACKGROUND: This prospective cohort study compared primary-school-aged outcomes between children with Hirschsprung disease (HD) following Soave, Duhamel or Swenson procedures. METHODS: Children with histologically proven HD were identified in British/Irish paediatric surgical centers (01/10/2010-30/09/2012). Parent/clinician outcomes were collected when children were 5-8 years old and combined with management/early outcomes data. Propensity score/covariate adjusted multiple-event-Cox and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used. RESULTS: 277 (91%) of 305 children underwent a pull-through (53% Soave, 37% Duhamel, 9% Swenson). Based upon 259 children (94%) with complete operative data, unplanned reoperation rates (95% CI) per-person year of follow-up were 0.11 (0.08-0.13), 0.34 (0.29-0.40) and 1.06 (0.86-1.31) in the Soave/Duhamel/Swenson groups respectively. Adjusted Hazard Ratios for unplanned reoperation compared with the Soave were 1.50 (95% CI 0.66-3.44, p = 0.335) and 7.57 (95% CI 3.39-16.93, p < 0.001) for the Duhamel/Swenson respectively. Of 217 post-pull-through children with 5-8 year follow-up, 62%, 55%, and 62% in Soave/Duhamel/Swenson groups reported faecal incontinence. In comparison to Soave, Duhamel was associated with lower risk of faecal incontinence (aOR 0.34,95%CI 0.13-0.89,p = 0.028). Of 191 children without a stoma, 42%, 59% and 30% in Soave/Duhamel/Swenson groups required assistance to maintain bowel movements; compared to Soave, the Duhamel group were more likely to require assistance (aOR 2.61,95% CI 1.03-6.60,p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Soave, Swenson was associated with increased risk of unplanned reoperation, whilst Duhamel was associated with reduced risk of faecal incontinence, but increased risk of constipation at 5-8 years of age. The risk profiles described can be used to inform consent discussions between surgeons and parents. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Management of Gastroschisis: Results From the NETS2G Study, a Joint British, Irish, and Canadian Prospective Cohort Study of 1268 Infants.

OBJECTIVE: In infants with gastroschisis, outcomes were compared between those where operative reduction and fascial closure were attempted ≤24 hours of age (PC), and those who underwent planned closure of their defect >24 hours of age following reduction with a pre-formed silo (SR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Inadequate evidence exists to determine how best to treat infants with gastroschisis. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of data collected 2006-2008 using the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, and 2005-2016 using the Canadian Pediatric Surgery Network.28-day outcomes were compared between infants undergoing PC and SR. Primary outcome was number of gastrointestinal complications. Interactions were investigated between infant characteristics and treatment to determine whether intervention effect varied in sub-groups of infants. RESULTS: Data from 341 British and Irish infants (27%) and 927 Canadian infants (73%) were used. 671 infants (42%) underwent PC and 597 (37%) underwent SR. The effect of SR on outcome varied according to the presence/absence of intestinal perforation, intestinal matting and intestinal necrosis. In infants without these features, SR was associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications [aIRR 0.25 (95% CI 0.09-0.67, P = 0.006)], more operations [aIRR 1.40 (95% CI 1.22-1.60, P < 0.001)], more days PN [aIRR 1.08 (95% CI 1.03-1.13, P < 0.001)], and a higher infection risk [aOR 2.06 (95% CI 1.10-3.87, P = 0.025)]. In infants with these features, SR was associated with a greater number of operations [aIRR 1.30 (95% CI 1.17-1.45, P < 0.001)], and more days PN [aIRR 1.06 (95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.003)]. CONCLUSIONS: In infants without intestinal perforation, matting, or necrosis, the benefits of SR outweigh its drawbacks. In infants with these features, the opposite is true. Treatment choice should be based upon these features.

Challenges of improving the evidence base in smaller surgical specialties, as highlighted by a systematic review of gastroschisis management.

OBJECTIVE: To identify methods of improving the evidence base in smaller surgical specialties, using a systematic review of gastroschisis management as an example. BACKGROUND: Operative primary fascial closure (OPFC), and silo placement with staged reduction and delayed closure (SR) are the most commonly used methods of gastroschisis closure. Relative merits of each are unclear. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing outcomes following OPFC and SR in infants with simple gastroschisis. Primary outcomes of interest were mortality, length of hospitalization and time to full enteral feeding. RESULTS: 751 unique articles were identified. Eight met the inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials. 488 infants underwent OPFC and 316 underwent SR. Multiple studies were excluded because they included heterogeneous populations and mixed intervention groups. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SR group (mean difference 8.97 days, 95% CI 2.14-15.80 days), as was number of post-operative days to complete enteral feeding (mean difference 7.19 days, 95%CI 2.01-12.36 days). Mortality was not statistically significantly different, although the odds of death were raised in the SR group (OR 1.96, 95%CI 0.71-5.35). CONCLUSIONS: Despite showing some benefit of OPFC over SR, our results are tempered by the low quality of the available studies, which were small and variably reported. Coordinating research through a National Paediatric Surgical Trials Unit could alleviate many of these problems. A similar national approach could be used in other smaller surgical specialties.