Controlling peripheral intravenous catheter failure by needleless connector design: A pilot randomised controlled trial.

AIM: To test the feasibility of a study protocol that compared the efficacy of neutral- and negative-pressure needleless connectors (NCs). DESIGN: A single-centre, parallel-group, pilot randomised control trial. METHODS: Our study compared neutral-(intervention) and negative-pressure (control) NCs among adult patients in an Australian hospital. The primary feasibility outcome was measured against predetermined criteria (e.g. eligibility, attrition). The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, analysed as time-to-event data. RESULTS: In total, 201 (100 control; 101 intervention) participants were enrolled between March 2020 and September 2020. All feasibility criteria were met except eligibility, which was lower (78%) than the 90% criterion. All-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure was significantly higher in the intervention group (39%) compared to control (19%). CONCLUSION: With minor modifications to participant screening for eligibility, this randomised control trial is feasible for a large multicentre randomised control trial. The neutral NC was associated with an increased risk of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: There are several NC designs available, often identified by their mechanism of pressure (positive, negative and neutral). However, NCs can contribute to peripheral intravenous catheter failure. This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare neutral and negative NC designs. Negative pressure NCs had lower PIVC failure compared to neutral NCs, however the results might not be generalisable to other brands or treatment settings. Further high-quality research is needed to explore NC design. REPORTING METHOD: Study methods and results reported in adherence to the CONSORT Statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs. RESULTS: During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.

Impact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion. RESULTS: During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.

Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. METHOD: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates. RESULTS: Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias. CONCLUSION: Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. AIM: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. DESIGN: A parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. METHODS: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post-insertion failure. RESULTS: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post-insertion failure compared to midline catheters. CONCLUSION: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi-centre trial to confirm findings is feasible.

Comparing compliance with commencement and use of two partograph designs for women in active labour: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Documentation and assessment of progress in labour using a partograph is recommended by the World Health Organisation to assist in the timely recognition of labour dystocia. Recent studies have tested new designs of partographs that aim to account for more variable rates of labour progress. However, other studies have suggested that poor compliance in the completion of partographs affects utility. The objective of this study was to compare two types of partographs for compliance in documentation and use for managing labour. METHODS: Low-risk nulliparous women in spontaneous labour (n = 228) were randomised to either an Action Line (control) (n = 114) or Dystocia Line partograph (intervention) (n = 114). Primary outcome was compliance with instructions for commencement of the partograph following a multifaceted training strategy. Secondary outcomes included compliance with the accompanying clinical management protocol for each partograph; and labour and birth outcomes. RESULTS: The compliance rate for commencing the Action line partograph was 43.2% compared to 67.0% (p = 0.02) for the Dystocia line partograph. Other than a reduction in artificial rupture of membranes in the Dystocia Line group there were no other differences in labour management or birth outcomes. The use of centralised electronic display of labour progress may be a contributing factor. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the commencement and use of either partograph was low. There was little indication that the partograph was being utilized in the assessment and management of prolonged labour. Further studies are needed to explore the current utility of partographs in labour management and the effect of centralised monitoring of progress in high resource settings.

Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained significant momentum in rectal cancer surgery. Most studies focus on short-term and oncological outcomes, showing similar outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Increasing survivorship mandates greater emphasis on quality of life and long-term function. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare quality of life and urinary, sexual, and lower GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgeries. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials Register, and Cochrane Library-identified articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resections was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were quality of life and urinary, sexual, and GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection patient groups. Where comparable data were available, results were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: The initial search revealed 1777 papers; 101 were reviewed in full, and 14 studies were included for review. Eleven assessed male sexual function; 7 favored robotic surgery, and the remaining studies showed no significant difference. Pooled analysis of 5 studies reporting rates of male sexual dysfunction at 12 months showed significantly lower rates after robotic surgery (OR, 0.51; p = 0.043). Twelve studies compared urinary function. Six favored robotic surgery, but in 2 studies, a difference was seen at 6 months but not sustained at 12 months. Pooled analysis of 4 studies demonstrated significantly better urinary function scores at 12 months after robotic surgery (OR, 0.26; p = 0.016). Quality of life and GI function were equivalent, but very little data exist for these parameters. LIMITATIONS: A small number of studies compare outcomes between these groups; only 2 are randomized. Different scoring systems limit comparisons and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available data suggest that robotic rectal cancer resection improves male sexual and urinary functions when compared with laparoscopy, but there is no difference in quality of life or GI function. Future studies should report all facets of functional outcomes using standardized scoring systems.

Evaluating methods for the use and decontamination of needleless connectors: A qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Needleless connectors (NCs) are essential devices designed to provide safe, needle-free connection between venous access devices, syringes and infusions. There is a variety of designs, and associated decontamination products and practices; the resulting confusion can cause detrimental patient outcomes. This study aimed to explore nurses' attitudes, techniques, and practices around the use and decontamination of NCs in clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative inquiry was conducted with seven focus groups of 4-6 participants each in the cancer and surgical units of a large tertiary hospital in Australia between January and March 2019. Participants comprised nurses who had taken part in a recent clinical trial of NC decontamination. Focus group sessions were recorded, transcribed and synthesised using content analysis. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were conducted (total, N = 30 participants), lasting 16-20 min. Six major themes were identified surrounding needleless connector use and decontamination: 'safety and utility'; 'terminology and technological understanding'; 'clinical practice determinants'; 'decontamination procedures and influencers'; 'education and culture'; and 'research and innovation'. CONCLUSION: The participants articulated positive attitudes towards needleless connector use for needle-stick and infection prevention, however rationales for care and maintenance practices demonstrated limited understanding of guidelines (e.g., disinfection time) and specific NC function (e.g., positive, negative pressure). The findings indicated the need for targeted, standardised needleless connector education, to enhance staff confidence, improve consistency of care and ensure patient safety.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy: Feasibility and short-term outcomes.

AIM: To explore the feasibility and safety of robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy. METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic beyond TME resections for primary or recurrent pelvic malignancy between July 2015 and July 2021 in a public quaternary and a private tertiary centre were included. Demographic and clinical data were recorded and outcomes analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (50% males) were included, with a median age of 58 (45-70.8) years, and a BMI of 26 (24.3-28.1) kg/m2 . Indication for surgery was rectal adenocarcinoma in nineteen, leiomyosarcoma in two, anal squamous cell carcinoma in one and combined rectal and prostatic adenocarcinoma in two patients. All patients required resection of at least one adjacent pelvic organ including genitourinary structures (n = 23), internal iliac vessels (n = 3) and/or bone (n = 2). Eleven patients had a restorative procedure. Of the 13 nonrestorative cases, nine needed perineal reconstruction with a flap. There was one conversion due to bleeding. The mean operating time was 370 (285-424) min, and the median blood loss was 400 (200-2,000) ml. The median length of stay was 16 (9.3-23.8) days. Fourteen patients (58.3%) had postoperative complications; eight of them (33.3%) were Clavien-Dindo III or more complication. Twenty-three (95.8%) patients had an R0 resection. During a median follow-up of 10 (7-23.5) months, five patients (20.8%) had systemic recurrences. No local recurrences were identified during the study period. CONCLUSION: Implementation of robotic beyond TME surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy is feasible within a highly specialised setting.

Robotic complete mesocolic excision versus conventional robotic right colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: a comparative study of perioperative outcomes.

AIM: This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic complete mesocolic excision (RCME) versus conventional robotic right colectomy (RRC) for right-sided colon cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer in a public quaternary and a private tertiary healthcare centre between November 2018 and June 2020 were included. Clinical, perioperative and histopathological variables were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 25 (49%) of them had an RCME. The groups were evenly distributed in terms of demographic characteristics and tumour location. Operative time was similar between both groups, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. There were no differences in overall complications (16% in RCME vs. 26.9% in RRC; p = 0.499) or their profile between groups. There were no anastomotic leaks recorded, and the reoperation rates were similar (0% for RCME versus 3.8% for RRC; p = 1). In addition, the median length of hospital stay was similar in between the RCME and the RRC groups (4 [4-6] days versus 5 [3-8.5] days, respectively; p = 0.891). Whilst there were no differences in the TNM staging, the mean number of lymph nodes harvested with RCME was 37.7 (±12.9) compared to 21.8 (±7.5) with RCC (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our series, RCME was associated with a higher lymph node harvest and a similar morbidity profile compared to RCC. Further studies are required to validate these results and provide long-term oncologic outcomes.

The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: The learning curve has implications for efficient surgical training. Robotic surgery is perceived to have a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy; however, detailed analysis is lacking. The aim of this work was to analyse studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic colorectal learning curves. Simulation studies comparing novices' learning curves were analysed in order to surmise applicability to colorectal surgery. METHOD: A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library identified colorectal papers (from 1 January 2000 to 3 March 2021) comparing robotic and laparoscopic learning curves where surgeons lacked laparoscopic colorectal experience. Simulation studies comparing learning curves were also included. The learning curve was defined as the period of ongoing improvement in speed and/or accuracy. RESULTS: From 576 abstracts reviewed, three operative and 16 simulation studies were included. The robotic learning curve for right colectomy was significantly faster in one study (16 vs. 25 cases) and equal for anterior resection in two studies (44 vs. 41 cases and 55 vs. 55). One study showed fewer complications for robotic patients (14.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.013). Ten simulation studies reported faster times and eight recorded error rates favouring robotic surgery. Seven studies measured the learning curve. Four favoured laparoscopic surgery, but operating times were faster using the robotic platform. CONCLUSION: Operating times for robotic surgery may be faster than laparoscopy when surgeons are inexperienced with both platforms. This may be related to a superior baseline performance rather than a shorter learning curve. Whether a shorter learning curve on the laparoscopic platform will persist for long enough to enable skills to overtake robotic ability needs further investigation.

Maternal positioning with flexed thighs to correct foetal occipito-posterior position in labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Foetal occipto-posterior position during labour can contribute to negative outcomes. Encouraging women to adopt positions utilising thigh flexion with the aim of increasing pelvic diameters and promoting foetal rotation to the occpito-anterior position are often used. However, the efficacy of these strategies has not yet been determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of maternal hands and knees or lateral positions with flexed thighs versus control in rotating foetal occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior in the first stage of labour. METHODS: The databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase were searched with dates ranging from 1947 to 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared maternal hands and knees, and lateral positions incorporating flexed thighs (spine-femur angle of ≥ 90°) versus control to rotate foetal malposition in the first stage of labour and published in English. Methodological quality was assessed based on Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 for randomized controlled trials. Two teams of researchers completed the study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven RCTs met our inclusion criteria (n = 1422). Whilst there was an increase in the rate of spontaneous foetal rotation from the occipito-posterior to the anterior position, particularly in the first hour after the intervention was adopted, this did not reach statistical significance (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.96-1.39, p = 0.13). The effect was insufficient to influence rates of spontaneous vaginal birth (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.26, p = 0.72) whilst there was a reduction in the duration of first stage labour (Mean-difference, -27.34; 95% CI, -45.96, -8.72, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reports no significant correlation between maternal positioning with flexed thighs and foetal rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior position during first stage labour. The specific maternal positions tested did not impact on the majority of other labour and birth outcomes. Given that the majority of fetuses will rotate spontaneously to an occipito-anterior position it may be that maternal posturing facilitates earlier rotation in this group but has no effect on the subset of infants that would otherwise persist in the occipito-posterior position to birth.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates. CONCLUSION: The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.

Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?

BACKGROUND: Although currently limited, the requirement for colorectal trainees to attain skills in robotic surgery is likely to increase due to further utilization of robotic platforms globally. The aim of the study is to describe the training programme utilized and assess outcomes of fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A structured robotic training programme was generated across a tertiary hospital setting. Review of four prospectively maintained fellow operative logbooks was performed to assess caseload and skill acquisition. Operative and patient-related outcomes were compared with consultant trainer performed cases. Data were analysed using R with a P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: The structured robotic training scheme is a two-tiered system over a 12-month period. The trainer-directed pathway comprised of a robotic console safety course followed by cart-side assisting, a wet lab animal course, dual-console accreditation training course and onsite proctoring, prior to becoming an independent console surgeon. Over 2 years, 265 robotic (n = 143 primary/component surgeon) cases were undertaken with fellows A, B, C and D involved in 63, 77, 75 and 50 robotic colorectal cases, respectively. Individual learning curves revealed independent procedure competency at cases 11, 14, 15 and 12, respectively, for robotic anterior resection. There was no significant difference observed in operative time (P = 0.39), blood loss (P = 0.41), lymph node harvest (P = 0.35), conversion rates (2% versus 4%), anastomotic leaks (1% versus 3%) and R0 resection rates (100% versus 98% colonic, 96% versus 96% rectal, P = 0.48) between surgical fellows and consultant trainers. Clavien-Dindo(III-IV) complications were similar (10% versus 6%,P = 0.25) with no mortalities encountered. CONCLUSION: It is feasible and safe to train fellows in robotic colorectal surgery without compromise of operative- and patient-related outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: evolution over a decade.

BACKGROUND: Despite reports of increasing adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery worldwide, data regarding its uptake in Australasia are lacking. This study examines the trends of robotic colorectal surgery in Australia during the last 10 years. METHODS: Data from patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery with the da Vinci robotic platform between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. Overall, numbers of specific colorectal procedures across Australia were obtained from the Medicare Benefit Schedule data over the same period. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to determine the statistical trends of overall and specific robotic colorectal procedures over time. RESULTS: A total of 6110 robotic general surgery procedures were performed across Australia during the study period. Of these, 3522 (57.6%) were robotic colorectal procedures. An increasing trend of overall robotic colorectal procedures was seen over 10 years (Pearson's coefficient of 0.875; P = 0.001). While this applied to both the public and private sectors, 90.7% of the procedures were undertaken in the private sector. Restorative rectal resections, rectopexies, and right hemicolectomies accounted for 82.6% of the robotic colorectal procedures performed during this period with an increasing trend seen over time for each intervention. Moreover, a robotic approach was utilized in 12.5%, 41.0% and 9.0% of all restorative rectal resections, rectopexies and right hemicolectomies undertaken in Australia during 2019, respectively. CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal surgery has increased dramatically in Australia over the last 10 years, especially in the private sector. Penetration of robotic colorectal surgery in the public healthcare system will require focussed cost-benefit evaluations and governmental investment.

Needleless connector decontamination for prevention of central venous access device infection: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

Pilot randomized controlled trial (180 patients) of needleless connector decontamination. Central line-associated bloodstream infection occurred in 2% (1/61) of 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) wipe, 2% (1/59) of 70% IPA cap, and zero (0/58) infections in 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% IPA wipe patients. Larger definitive trials are feasible and needed.

Implementation and evaluation of short peripheral intravenous catheter flushing guidelines: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are ubiquitous medical devices, crucial to providing essential fluids and drugs. However, post-insertion PIVC failure occurs frequently, likely due to inconsistent maintenance practice such as flushing. The aim of this implementation study was to evaluate the impact a multifaceted intervention centred on short PIVC maintenance had on patient outcomes. METHODS: This single-centre, incomplete, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial with an implementation period was undertaken at a quaternary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were from general medical and surgical wards, aged ≥ 18 years, and requiring a PIVC for > 24 h. Wards were the unit of randomisation and allocation was concealed until the time of crossover to the implementation phase. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked but infections were adjudicated by a physician masked to allocation. Practice during the control period was standard care (variable practice with manually prepared flushes of 0.9% sodium chloride). The intervention group received education reinforcing practice guidelines (including administration with manufacturer-prepared pre-filled flush syringes). The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of occlusion, infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, and primary bloodstream or local infection). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and February 2017, 619 patients from 9 clusters (wards) were enrolled (control n = 306, intervention n = 313), with 617 patients comprising the intention-to-treat population. PIVC failure was 91 (30%) in the control and 69 (22%) in the intervention group (risk difference - 8%, 95% CI - 14 to - 1, p = 0.032). Total costs were lower in the intervention group. No serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of post-insertion PIVC flushing according to recommended guidelines. Evidence-based education, surveillance and products for post-insertion PIVC management are vital to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial submitted for registration on 25 January 2016. Approved and retrospectively registered on 4 August 2016. Ref: ACTRN12616001035415 .

Flushing of peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot, factorial, randomised controlled trial of high versus low frequency and volume in paediatrics.

AIM: To test the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing different flushing frequencies and volumes to reduce peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) failure in paediatric inpatients. METHODS: Pilot, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial comparing PIVC flushing techniques in intervention pairs: (i) low volume (3 mL) versus high volume (10 mL); and (ii) low frequency (24 hourly) versus high frequency (6 hourly). Patients were excluded if: fluids were restricted, weight < 5 kg, PIVC already in situ for >24 h or continuous infusion. The primary end-point was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data and sample size estimates) of a large trial. Secondary end-points were PIVC failure (composite and individual), bloodstream infection and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 919 children were screened from April to November 2015, with 55 enrolled. Screening feasibility criteria were not met, mainly due to continuous infusions and PIVCs in situ >24 h or planned for imminent removal. However, 80% of eligible participants consented, 2% withdrew, protocol adherence was 100%, and there was no missing primary end-point data. PIVC failure was significantly higher (hazard ratio = 2.90, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-7.54) in the 3 mL compared to the 10 mL group. There was no difference in failure between frequency groups (hazard ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-2.33). There was no interaction effect (P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Trial feasibility proved challenging due to eligibility criteria, which could be improved with additional recruiting staff. Firm conclusions cannot be made based on this small sample, but flush volume may impact PIVC failure.