Faecal incontinence-a comprehensive review.

Introduction: Faecal incontinence (FI) is a distressing and often stigmatizing condition characterised as the recurrent involuntary passage of liquid or solid faeces. The reported prevalence of FI exhibits considerable variation, ranging from 7 to 15% in the general population, with higher rates reported among older adults and women. This review explores the pathophysiology mechanisms, the diagnostic modalities and the efficiency of treatment options up to date. Methods: A review of the literature was conducted to identify the pathophysiological pathways, investigation and treatment modalities. Result and discussion: This review provides an in-depth exploration of the intricate physiological processes that maintain continence in humans. It then guides the reader through a detailed examination of diagnostic procedures and a thorough analysis of the available treatment choices, including their associated success rates. This review is an ideal resource for individuals with a general medical background and colorectal surgeons who lack specialized knowledge in pelvic floor disorders, as it offers a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI).

Time for change: compliance with RCS green theatre checklist-facilitators and barriers on the journey to net zero.

Background: Climate change is an era-defining health concern, with healthcare related emissions paradoxically compounding negative impacts. The NHS produces 5% of the UK's carbon footprint, with operating theatres a recognised carbon hotspot. NHS England aims to become Net Zero by 2045. Consequently, UK Royal Colleges of Surgery have published guidance to foster an evidence-based sustainable transformation in surgical practice. Methods: A single-centre quality improvement project was undertaken, aiming to provide an overview of sustainable practice locally. The Intercollegiate "Green Theatre Checklist" was taken as an audit standard, focusing on "preparing for surgery" and "intraoperative equipment" subsections. Any general surgical procedure was eligible for inclusion. Usage of reusable textiles, non-sterile gloves, catheters, antibiotics, alcohol vs. water-based scrub techniques, skin sterilisation choices, and skin closure materials were recorded. Baseline data collection occurred over a 3 week period, followed by dissemination of results locally via clinical governance meetings and poster displays. A re-audit of practice was conducted using the same methodology and duration. Results: Datasets 1 (n = 23) and 2 (n = 23) included open (n = 22), laparoscopic (n = 24), elective (n = 22) and non-elective (n = 24) cases. Good practice was demonstrated in reusable textiles (trolley covers 96%, 78%, drapes 100%, 92%) however procurement issues reduced otherwise good reusable gown use in Dataset 2 in (90%, 46%). No unnecessary catheter use was identified, and loose skin preparations were used unanimously. Uptake of alcohol-based scrubbing techniques was low (15%, 17%) and unnecessary non-sterile glove use was observed in >30% of procedures. All laparoscopic ports and scissors were single use. Carbon footprints were 128.27 kgCO2e and 117.71 kgCO2e in datasets 1 and 2 respectively. Conclusion: This project evidences good practice alongside future local focus areas for improved sustainability. Adoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments, avoiding unnecessary equipment opening, and standardising reusable materials could reduce carbon and environmental impact considerably. Successful implementation requires considered procurement practices, improved awareness and education, clear leadership, and a sustained cultural shift within the healthcare community. Collaboration among professional institutions and access to supporting evidence is crucial in driving engagement and empowering clinicians to make locally relevant changes a reality.

Innovation in gastrointestinal surgery: the evolution of minimally invasive surgery-a narrative review.

Background: Minimally invasive (MI) surgery has revolutionised surgery, becoming the standard of care in many countries around the globe. Observed benefits over traditional open surgery include reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, and decreased recovery time. Gastrointestinal surgery in particular was an early adaptor to both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Within this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery and a critical outlook on the evidence surrounding its effectiveness and safety. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for the topic of this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed. The methodology for evidence synthesis was in line with the four steps for narrative reviews outlined in current literature. The key words used were minimally invasive, robotic, laparoscopic colorectal, colon, rectal surgery. Conclusion: The introduction of minimally surgery has revolutionised patient care. Despite the evidence supporting this technique in gastrointestinal surgery, several controversies remain. Here we discuss some of them; the lack of high level evidence regarding the oncological outcomes of TaTME and lack of supporting evidence for robotic colorectalrectal surgery and upper GI surgery. These controversies open pathways for future research opportunities with RCTs focusing on comparing robotic to laparoscopic with different primary outcomes including ergonomics and surgeon comfort.