Recommendations for optimising pilot and feasibility work in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical trials are recognised as inherently challenging. Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) are increasingly acknowledged as a key method to optimise the design and conduct of randomised trials but remain limited in surgery. We used a mixed methods approach to develop recommendations for how surgical PAFS could be optimised. METHODS: The findings from a quantitative analysis of funded surgical PAFS over a 10-year period and in-depth qualitative interviews with surgeons, methodologists and funders were triangulated and synthesised with available methodological guidance on PAFS. RESULTS: The synthesis informed the development of an explanatory model describing root causes and compounding challenges that contribute to how and why surgical PAFS is not currently optimised. The four root causes identified include issues relating to (i) understanding the full scope of PAFS; (ii) design and conduct of PAFS; (iii) reporting of PAFS; and (iv) lack of appreciation of the value of PAFS by all stakeholder groups. Compounding challenges relate to both cultural issues and access to and interpretation of available methodological PAFS guidance. The study findings and explanatory model were used to inform the development of a practical guidance tool for surgeons and study teams to improve research practice. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of PAFS in surgery requires a cultural shift in research practice amongst funders, academic institutions, regulatory bodies and journal editors, as well as amongst surgeons. Our 'Top Tips' guidance tool offers an accessible framework for surgeons designing PAFS. Adoption and utilisation of these recommendations will optimise surgical PAFS, facilitating successful and efficient future surgical trials.

Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field. METHODS: Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized. RESULTS: Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events. CONCLUSION: A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.

Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes following discharge after surgery: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the electronic collection and clinical feedback of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) following surgical discharge. This systematic review summarized the evidence on the collection and uses of electronic systems to collect PROs after discharge from hospital after surgery. METHOD: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central were undertaken from database inception to July 2019 using terms for 'patient reported outcomes', 'electronic', 'surgery' and 'at home'. Primary research of all study designs was included if they used electronic systems to collect PRO data in adults after hospital discharge following surgery. Data were collected on the settings, patient groups and specialties, ePRO systems (including features and functions), PRO data collected, and integration with health records. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included from 9474 records, including two RCTs and six orthopaedic surgery studies. Most studies (9 of 14) used commercial ePRO systems. Six reported types of electronic device were used: tablets or other portable devices (3 studies), smartphones (2), combination of smartphones, tablets, portable devices and computers (1). Systems had limited features and functions such as real-time clinical feedback (6 studies) and messaging service for patients with care teams (3). No study described ePRO system integration with electronic health records to support clinical feedback. CONCLUSION: There is limited reporting of ePRO systems in the surgical literature, and ePRO systems lack integration with hospital clinical systems. Future research should describe the ePRO system and ePRO questionnaires used, and challenges encountered during the study, to support efficient upscaling of ePRO systems using tried and tested approaches.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Development and Measurement Properties.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality. CONCLUSIONS: BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.

Patient experiences of an electronic PRO tailored feedback system for symptom management following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Complications following upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery are common. Symptom-monitoring following discharge is not standardized. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system providing feedback to patients and clinicians could support patients and improve outcomes. Little is known about patients' experiences of using such systems. This qualitative sub-study explored patients' perspectives of the benefits of using a novel ePRO system, developed as part of the mixed methods eRAPID pilot study, to support recovery following discharge after UGI surgery. METHODS: Patients completed the online ePRO symptom-report system post-discharge. Weekly interviews explored patients' experiences of using ePRO, the acceptability of feedback generated and its value for supporting their recovery. Interviews were audio-recorded and targeted transcriptions were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-five interviews with 16 participants (11 men, mean age 63 years) were analysed. Two main themes were identified: (1) reassurance and (2) empowerment. Feelings of isolation were common; many patients felt uninformed regarding their expectations of recovery and whether their symptoms warranted clinical investigation. Participants were reassured by tailored feedback advising them to contact their care team, alleviating their anxiety. Patients reported feeling empowered by the ePRO system and in control of their symptoms and recovery. CONCLUSION: Patients recovering at home following major cancer surgery regarded electronic symptom-monitoring and feedback as acceptable and beneficial. Patients perceived that the system enhanced information provision and provided a direct link to their care team. Patients felt that the system provided reassurance at a time of uncertainty and isolation, enabling them to feel in control of their symptoms and recovery.

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for the evaluation of new surgical procedures and devices is inconsistent and lacks standardization. A core outcome set may promote the safe and transparent evaluation of surgical innovations. This systematic review examined outcome selection, measurement and reporting in studies conducted within the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring) framework to examine current practice and inform the development of a core outcome set for early-phase studies of surgical procedures/devices. METHODS: Web of Science and Scopus citation searches were performed to identify author-reported IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies for any surgical procedure/device. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, including contextual information regarding outcome selection and measurement. Outcomes were categorized to inform a conceptual framework of outcome domains relevant to evaluating innovation. RESULTS: Some 48 studies were identified. Outcome selection, measurement and reporting varied widely across studies in different IDEAL stages. From 1737 outcomes extracted, 22 domains specific to evaluating innovation were conceptualized under seven broad categories: procedure completion success/failure; modifications; unanticipated events; surgeons' experiences; patients' experiences; resource use specific to the innovative procedure/device; and other innovation-specific outcomes. Most innovation-specific outcomes were measured and reported in only a small number of studies. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the need for guidance and standardization in outcome selection and reporting in the evaluation of new surgical procedures/devices. Novel outcome domains specific to innovation have been identified to establish a core outcome set for future evaluations of surgical innovations.

ANTECEDENTES: La selección de resultados, mediciones y redacción de los informes para la evaluación de nuevos procedimientos y dispositivos quirúrgicos es inconsistente y carece de estandarización. Determinar un conjunto de resultados básicos (core outcome set, COS) podría contribuir a la transparencia y seguridad de las evaluaciones de las innovaciones quirúrgicas. Esta revisión sistemática analizó la selección de resultados, medición de los mismos e informes de estudios efectuados en el marco metodológico IDEAL, a fin de valorar la práctica actual y presentar el desarrollo de un COS para estudios en fase inicial de procedimientos/dispositivos quirúrgicos. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus para identificar estudios efectuados por los autores en el marco IDEAL/IDEAL-D referentes a cualquier procedimiento/dispositivo quirúrgico. Los resultados se extrajeron literalmente, incluida la información contextualizada referente a la selección y medición de los resultados. Los resultados se categorizaron para presentar información en un marco conceptual de dominios de resultados que fueran relevantes para poder evaluar la innovación. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 48 estudios. Los estudios mostraban una amplia variedad en la selección de resultados, mediciones e información correspondientes a diferentes estadios IDEAL. A partir de 1.737 resultados extraídos, se conceptualizaron 22 dominios específicos para evaluar la innovación agrupados en 7 amplias categorías: éxito/fracaso para completar el procedimiento; modificaciones; eventos imprevistos; experiencias de los cirujanos; experiencias de los pacientes; uso de recursos específicos del procedimiento/dispositivo innovador y otros resultados específicos de la innovación. La mayoría de los resultados específicos de la innovación se midieron y notificaron solo en un pequeño número de estudios. CONCLUSIÓN: Esta revisión ha puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de orientación y estandarización en la selección de resultados y la notificación en la evaluación de nuevos procedimientos/dispositivos quirúrgicos. Se han identificado nuevos dominios de resultados específicos de innovación para establecer un COS para futuras evaluaciones de innovaciones quirúrgicas.

A systematic review and in-depth analysis of outcome reporting in early phase studies of colorectal cancer surgical innovation.

AIM: Early phase studies are essential to evaluate new technologies prior to randomized evaluation. Evaluation is limited, however, by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This study examines outcome reporting in studies of innovative colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Systematic searches identified studies of invasive procedures treating primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Included were a random sample of studies which authors reported as 'new' or 'modified'. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorized using an existing framework of 32 domains relevant to early phase studies. Outcomes were classified as 'measured' (where there was an explicit statement to that effect or evidence that data collection had occurred) or 'mentioned but not measured' (where outcomes were discussed but data collection was not evident). Patterns of identified outcomes are described. RESULTS: Of 8373 records, 816 were potentially eligible. Full-text review of a random sample of 218 studies identified 51 for inclusion of which 34 (66%) were 'new' and 17 (33%) were 'modified'. Some 2073 outcomes were identified, and all mapped to domains. 'Anticipated disadvantages' were most frequently identified [660 (32%) outcomes identified across 50 (98%) studies]. No domain was represented in all studies. Under half (944, 46%) of outcomes were 'measured'. 'Surgeon's/operator's experience of the innovation' was more frequently 'mentioned but not measured' [207 (18%) outcomes across 46 (90%) studies] than 'measured' [17 (2%) outcomes, 11 (22%) studies]. CONCLUSION: There is outcome reporting heterogeneity in studies of early phase colorectal cancer surgery. The adoption of core outcome sets may help to resolve these inconsistencies and enable efficient evaluation of surgical innovations.

A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery.

BACKGROUND: Advances in peri-operative care of surgical oncology patients result in shorter hospital stays. Earlier discharge may bring benefits, but complications can occur while patients are recovering at home. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems may enhance remote, real-time symptom monitoring and detection of complications after hospital discharge, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Evidence of the effectiveness of ePRO systems in surgical oncology is lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: A pilot study in two UK hospitals included patients who had undergone cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants completed the ePRO symptom-report at discharge, twice in the first week and weekly post-discharge. Symptom-report completeness, system actions, barriers to using the ePRO system and technical performance were examined. The ePRO surgery system is an online symptom-report that allows clinicians to view patient symptom-reports within hospital electronic health records and was developed as part of the eRAPID project. Clinically derived algorithms provide patients with tailored self-management advice, prompts to contact a clinician or automated clinician alerts depending on symptom severity. Interviews with participants and clinicians determined the acceptability of the ePRO system to support patients and their clinical management during recovery. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were approached, of which 40 consented to participate (27 male, mean age 64 years). Symptom-report response rates were high (range 63-100%). Of 197 ePRO completions analysed, 76 (39%) triggered self-management advice, 72 (36%) trigged advice to contact a clinician, 9 (5%) triggered a clinician alert and 40 (20%) did not require advice. Participants found the ePRO system reassuring, providing timely information and advice relevant to supporting their recovery. Clinicians regarded the system as a useful adjunct to usual care, by signposting patients to seek appropriate help and enhancing their understanding of patients' experiences during recovery. CONCLUSION: Use of the ePRO system for the real-time, remote monitoring of symptoms in patients recovering from cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery is feasible and acceptable. A definitive randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the impact of the system on patients' wellbeing after hospital discharge.

Optimizing the design of invasive placebo interventions in randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled trials play an important role in the evaluation of healthcare interventions. However, they can be challenging to design and deliver for invasive interventions, including surgery. In-depth understanding of the component parts of the treatment intervention is needed to ascertain what should, and should not, be delivered as part of the placebo. Assessment of risk to patients and strategies to ensure that the placebo effectively mimics the treatment are also required. To date, no guidance exists for the design of invasive placebo interventions. This study aimed to develop a framework to optimize the design and delivery of invasive placebo interventions in RCTs. METHODS: A preliminary framework was developed using published literature to: expand the scope of an existing typology, which facilitates the deconstruction of invasive interventions; and identify placebo optimization strategies. The framework was refined after consultation with key stakeholders in surgical trials, consensus methodology and medical ethics. RESULTS: The resulting DITTO framework consists of five stages: deconstruct treatment intervention into constituent components and co-interventions; identify critical surgical element(s); take out the critical element(s); think risk, feasibility and role of placebo in the trial when considering remaining components; and optimize placebo to ensure effective blinding of patients and trial personnel. CONCLUSION: DITTO considers invasive placebo composition systematically, accounting for risk, feasibility and placebo optimization. Use of the framework can support the design of high-quality RCTs, which are needed to underpin delivery of healthcare interventions.

ANTECEDENTES: Los ensayos controlados con placebo juegan un papel importante en la evaluación de las intervenciones sanitarias. Sin embargo, pueden ser difíciles de diseñar e implementar en el caso de intervenciones invasivas, incluida la cirugía. Se necesita un conocimiento profundo de los componentes de la intervención terapéutica (para determinar qué se debe y qué no se debe administrar como parte del placebo). También se precisa de una evaluación del riesgo para los pacientes y de las estrategias para garantizar que el placebo imite el tratamiento de forma efectiva. Hasta la fecha no existen guías para el diseño de intervenciones invasivas con placebo. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar un marco para optimizar el diseño y la práctica de intervenciones invasivas con placebo dentro en los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA). MÉTODOS: Utilizando la literatura publicada, se desarrolló un marco preliminar para i) ampliar el alcance de los modelos existentes para facilitar la deconstrucción de las actuaciones invasivas, y ii) identificar estrategias para optimizar el placebo. El marco se perfeccionó tras consultar con partes interesadas ​​en ensayos quirúrgicos, metodología de consenso y ética médica. RESULTADOS: El marco DITTO resultantes consiste en cinco etapas: Etapa 1: deconstrucción de la intervención de tratamiento en sus componentes esenciales y co-intervenciones; Etapa 2: identificar el(los) elemento(s) quirúrgico(s) básico(s); Etapa 3: eliminar el(los) elemento(s) básico(s); Etapa 4: considerar el riesgo, la viabilidad y el papel del placebo en el ensayo al tener en cuenta los demás componentes; y Etapa 5: optimizar el placebo para garantizar el cegamiento efectivo de los pacientes y del personal del ensayo. CONCLUSIÓN: DITTO considera de forma sistemática la naturaleza invasiva del placebo, teniendo en cuenta el riesgo, la viabilidad y la optimización del placebo. El uso de este marco de referencia puede ayudar al diseño de ECAs de alta calidad, necesarios para afianzar la implementación de intervenciones sanitarias.

A randomised feasibility trial comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy treatment for Dupuytren's contractures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy for treatment of Dupuytren's contractures. DESIGN: The design of this study is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, randomised feasibility trial with embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 years or over who were referred from primary to secondary care for treatment of a hand with Dupuytren's contractures of one or more fingers of more than 30° at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and/or proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and well-defined cord(s). Patients were excluded if they had undergone previous Dupuytren's contracture surgery on the same hand. METHODS: Potential participants were screened for eligibility. Recruited participants randomised (1:1) to treatment with either needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy and followed-up for up to 6 months after treatment. Data on recruitment rates, completion of follow-up, and procedure costs were collected. Four patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective outcome measures were collected before intervention and 6 weeks and 6 months afterwards. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three of 267 (57%) primary-care referrals for Dupuytren's contractures met the eligibility criteria for the study. Seventy-one of the 153 (46%) agreed to participate and were randomly allocated to treatment with needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy. Sixty-seven of these underwent their allocated treatment, two were crossovers from limited fasciectomy to needle fasciotomy, and two (both allocated limited fasciectomy) received no treatment. Fifty-nine participants (85%) completed 6-month follow-up PROMs. Participants felt the MYMOP, PEM and URAM PROMs allowed them to better describe how their treatment affected their hand function than the DASH PROM. The estimated costs of limited fasciectomy (in an operating theatre) and needle fasciotomy (in a clinic room) were £777 and £111 respectively. CONCLUSION: A large RCT comparing treatment of Dupuytren's contractures by needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy is feasible. Data from this study will help determine the number of sites and duration of recruitment required to complete an adequately powered RCT and will assist the selection of PROMs in future studies on the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures. (Level 1 feasibility study). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered with ISRCTN (registration number: ISRCTN11164292), date assigned - 28/08/2015.

Systematic review of the introduction and evaluation of magnetic augmentation of the lower oesophageal sphincter for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is reported to be an innovative alternative to antireflux surgery for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Although used in practice, little is known about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of MSA and its introduction into clinical practice, in the context of guidelines (such as IDEAL) for evaluating innovative surgical devices. METHODS: Systematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting MSA insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, surgeon expertise, technique description and outcome reporting. RESULTS: Searches identified 587 abstracts; 39 full-text papers were included (1 RCT 5 cohort, 3 case-control, 25 case series, 5 case reports). Twenty-one followed US Food and Drug Administration eligibility criteria for MSA insertion. Twenty-six documented that ethical approval was obtained. Two reported that participating surgeons received training in MSA; 18 provided information about how MSA insertion was performed, although techniques varied between studies. Follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 5 years; in 14 studies, it was less than 1 year. CONCLUSION: Most studies on MSA lacked information about patient selection, governance, expertise, techniques and outcomes, or varied between studies. Currently, MSA is being used despite a lack of robust evidence for its effectiveness.

ANTECEDENTES: El aumento de esfínter con un dispositivo magnético (magnetic sphincter augmentation, MSA) se ha descrito como una alternativa innovadora a la cirugía antirreflujo para pacientes con enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico. Aunque este procedimiento se utiliza en la práctica, se sabe poco acerca de cómo ha sido evaluado. Este estudio se propuso resumir sistemáticamente y evaluar los trabajos sobre MSA y su introducción en la práctica clínica, en el contexto de las guías (como IDEAL) para la evaluación de dispositivos quirúrgicos innovadores. MÉTODOS: Se identificaron todos los estudios publicados que describían la colocación de MSA efectuando búsquedas sistemáticas. Los datos recogidos incluían la selección de los pacientes, disposiciones de gobernanza, experiencia del cirujano, descripción técnica, y descripción de resultados. RESULTADOS: Las búsquedas identificaron 587 resúmenes, incluyéndose 39 artículos completos (5 estudios de cohortes, 3 estudios de casos y controles, 26 series de casos, 5 casos clínicos). En 21 estudios se siguieron los criterios de elegibilidad de la FDA para la colocación de MSA. En 26 estudios se confirmaba que se había obtenido la aprobación ética. Dos estudios describieron que los cirujanos participantes habían recibido formación en MSA; 18 proporcionaron información sobre cómo se realizó la colocación de MSA, aunque las técnicas variaron entre los estudios. El seguimiento oscilaba entre 4 semanas y 5 años; en 14 estudios fue inferior a un año. CONCLUSIÓN: La mayoría de los estudios sobre MSA fueron casos aislados y series de casos, sin un incremento apreciable en la calidad de la evidencia sobre MSA. La información sobre la selección de los pacientes, gobernanza, experiencia, técnicas, y resultados estaba ausente o variaba entre los estudios, haciendo difíciles las comparaciones. En la actualidad, MSA se utiliza a pesar de la falta de evidencia robusta sobre su efectividad.

Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria. METHODS: Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study. RESULTS: Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours. CONCLUSION: In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols.

BACKGROUND: RCTs in surgery are challenging owing to well established methodological issues. Well designed pilot and feasibility studies (PFS) may help overcome such issues to inform successful main trial design and conduct. This study aimed to analyse protocols of UK-funded studies to explore current use of PFS in surgery and identify areas for practice improvement. METHODS: PFS of surgical interventions funded by UK National Institute for Health Research programmes from 2005 to 2015 were identified, and original study protocols and associated publications sourced. Data extracted included study design characteristics, reasons for performing the work including perceived uncertainties around conducting a definitive main trial, and whether the studies had been published. RESULTS: Thirty-five surgical studies were identified, of which 29 were randomized, and over half (15 of 29) included additional methodological components (such as qualitative work examining recruitment, and participant surveys studying current interventions). Most studies focused on uncertainties around recruitment (32 of 35), with far fewer tackling uncertainties specific to surgery, such as intervention stability, implementation or delivery (10 of 35). Only half (19 of 35) had made their results available publicly, to date. CONCLUSION: The full potential of pretrial work to inform and optimize definitive surgical studies is not being realized.

Evaluation of an early-stage innovation for full-thickness excision of benign colonic polyps using the IDEAL framework.

AIMS: Colectomy is the current approach for patients with endoscopically unresectable benign polyps but risks considerable morbidity. Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision (FLEX) is a novel procedure, specifically developed to treat endoscopically unresectable benign colonic polyps, which could reduce the treatment burden of the current approach and improve outcomes. However, traditional evaluations of surgical innovations lack methodological rigour. This study reports the development and feasibility of the FLEX procedure in selected patients. METHOD: A prospective development study using the Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was undertaken, by one surgeon, of the FLEX procedure in selected patients with endoscopically unresectable benign colonic polyps. Three-dimensional (3D)-CT colonography reconstructions were used preoperatively to rehearse patient-specific, critical manoeuvres. Targetted, full-thickness excision was performed: after marking the margin of the caecal polyp using circumferential endoscopic argon plasma coagulation, transmural endoscopic sutures were used to evert the bowel and resection was undertaken by laparoscopic linear stapling. Feasibility outcomes (establishing 'local success') included evidence of complete polyp resection without adverse events (especially safe closure of the excision site). RESULTS: Ten patients [median (interquartile range) age: 74 (59-78) years] with polyp median diameters of 35 (30-41) mm, were referred for and consented to receive the FLEX procedure. During the same time frame, no patient underwent colectomy for benign polyps. One further patient received FLEX for local excision of a presumed malignant polyp because severe comorbidity prohibited standard procedures. The FLEX procedure was successfully performed locally, with complete resection of the polyp and safe closure of the excision site, in eight patients. Three noncompleted procedures were converted to laparoscopic segmental colectomy under the same anaesthetic because of endoscopic inaccessibility (two patients) and transcolonic suture failure (one patient). CONCLUSIONS: The FLEX procedure is still under development. Early data demonstrate that it is safe for excision of selected benign polyps. Modifications to transcolonic suture delivery are now required and there is a need for wider adoption before more definitive evaluation can be performed.

Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A-D). RESULTS: Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D). CONCLUSION: The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials.

Core information set for informed consent to surgery for oral or oropharyngeal cancer: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a core information set for informed consent to surgery for oral/oropharyngeal surgery. A core information set is baseline information rated important by patients and surgeons and is intended to improve patients' understanding of the intended procedure. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study. Systematic reviews of scientific and written healthcare literature, qualitative interviews and observations, Delphi surveys, and group consensus meetings identified information domains of importance for consent. SETTING: A regional head and neck clinic in the United Kingdom. Questionnaire participants were recruited from around the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients about to undergo, or who had previously undergone, surgery for oral/oropharyngeal cancer. Healthcare professionals involved in the management of head and neck cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was a core information set. RESULTS: Systematic reviews, interviews and consultation observations yielded 887 pieces of information that were categorised into 87 information domains. Survey response rates were 67% (n = 50) and 71% (n = 52) for patient and healthcare professional groups in round one. More than 90% responded in each group in the second round. Healthcare professionals were more likely to rate information about short-term or peri-operative events as important while patients rated longer term issues about survival and quality of life. The consensus-building process resulted in an agreed core information set of 13 domains plus two procedure-specific domains about tracheostomy and free-flap surgery. CONCLUSION: This study produced a core information set for surgeons and patients to discuss before surgery for oral/oropharyngeal cancer. Future work will optimise ways to integrate core information into routine consultations.

Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving surgical procedures are challenging for recruitment and infrequent in the specialty of bariatrics. The pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study (gastric bypass versus gastric band versus sleeve gastrectomy) provided the opportunity for an investigation of recruitment using a qualitative research integrated in trials (QuinteT) recruitment intervention (QRI). PATIENTS/METHODS: The QRI investigated recruitment in two centers in the pilot phase comparing bypass and banding, through the analysis of 12 in-depth staff interviews, 84 audio recordings of patient consultations, 19 non-participant observations of consultations and patient screening data. QRI findings were developed into a plan of action and fed back to centers to improve information provision and recruitment organization. RESULTS: Recruitment proved to be extremely difficult with only two patients recruited during the first 2 months. The pivotal issue in Center A was that an effective and established clinical service could not easily adapt to the needs of the RCT. There was little scope to present RCT details or ensure efficient eligibility assessment, and recruiters struggled to convey equipoise. Following presentation of QRI findings, recruitment in Center A increased from 9% in the first 2 months (2/22) to 40% (26/65) in the 4 months thereafter. Center B, commencing recruitment 3 months after Center A, learnt from the emerging issues in Center A and set up a special clinic for trial recruitment. The trial successfully completed pilot recruitment and progressed to the main phase across 11 centers. CONCLUSIONS: The QRI identified key issues that enabled the integration of the trial into the clinical setting. This contributed to successful recruitment in the By-Band-Sleeve trial-currently the largest in bariatric practice-and offers opportunities to optimize recruitment in other trials in bariatrics.