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.

The false dichotomy of surgical futility in the emergency laparotomy setting: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Futile is defined as 'the fact of having no effect or of achieving nothing'. Futility in medicine has been defined through seven guiding principles, which in the context of emergency surgery, have been relatively unexplored. This scoping review aimed to identify key concepts around surgical futility as it relates to emergency laparotomy. METHODS: Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, a scoping review was conducted. A search of the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed up until 1 November 2021 to identify literature relevant to the topic of futility in emergency laparotomy. RESULTS: Three cohort studies were included in the analysis. A total of 105 157 patients were included, with 1114 patients reported as futile. All studies were recent (2019 to 2020) and focused on the principle of quantitative futility (assessment of the probability of death after surgery) within a timeline after surgery: two defining futility as death within 48 hours of surgery and one as death within 72 hours. In all cases this was derived from a survival histogram. Predictors of defined futile procedures included age, level of independence prior to admission, surgical pathology, serum creatinine, arterial lactate, and pH. CONCLUSION: There remains a paucity of research defining, exploring, and analysing futile surgery in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. With limited published work focusing on quantitative futility and the binary outcome of death, research is urgently needed to explore all principles of futility, including the wishes of patients and their families.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Propensity-matched Study of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare open surgery (OS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) disease using a National dataset. BACKGROUND: PPU disease is typically treated surgically with an omental patch. This can be performed through OS or a LS. Current evidence in OS versus LS suggests equivalence in mortality and postoperative complications, but a decrease in pain and wound infections with LS. METHODS: A one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent PPU repair from December 2013 to December 2017 using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit was performed. Patients with an initially laparoscopic approach were classed as LS even if converted to OS. The primary end-point was 90-day mortality; secondary endpoints were length of stay (LOS), re-operation, and re-admission to critical care. Multivariable logistic and linear models were created to compare the effect of operative approach on binary and continuous outcomes with log-rank tests for time-to-event data. RESULTS: A total of 5253 patients underwent surgery in the study period. After propensity-matching, 2 groups of 1158 patients were created. Overall 90-day mortality was 7.5%. There was no difference between the LA and OA for 90-day mortality (7.2% vs 8.5%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56- 1.15, P = 0.23), median LOS (equivalent at 7 days, P = 0.09), reoperation (3.6% vs 4.0%, P = 0.74), or re-admission to critical care (2.8% vs 2.9%, P = 0.92). Across the 4-year study period LS use increased from 20% to 26% and the conversion rate decreased from 40% to 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Short outcomes from laparoscopic PPU repair appear equivalent to open repair. There is increasing adoption of LS with decreasing conversion rates. LS for PPU appears to be an acceptable approach in this setting.

Older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: observations from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) years 1-4.

BACKGROUND: older patients aged ≥65 years constitute the majority of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) population. To better understand this group and inform future service changes, this paper aims to describe patient characteristics, outcomes and process measures across age cohorts and temporally in the 4-year period (2014-2017) since NELA was established. METHODS: patient-level data were populated from the NELA data set years 1-4 and linked with Office of National Statistics mortality data. Descriptive data were compared between groups delineated by age, NELA year and geriatrician review. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and discharge to care-home accommodation. RESULTS: in total, 93,415 NELA patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 67 years. Patients aged ≥65 years had higher 30-day (15.3 versus 4.9%, P < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (20.4 versus 7.2%, P < 0.001) rates, longer LOS (median 15.2 versus 11.3 days, P < 0.001) and greater likelihood of discharge to care-home accommodation compared with younger patients (6.7 versus 1.9%, P < 0.001). Mortality rate reduction over time was greater in older compared with younger patients. The proportion of older NELA patients seen by a geriatrician post-operatively increased over years 1-4 (8.5 to 16.5%, P < 0.001). Post-operative geriatrician review was associated with reduced mortality (30-day odds ratio [OR] 0.38, confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.42, P < 0.001; 90-day OR 0.6, CI 0.56-0.65, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: older NELA patients have poorer post-operative outcomes. The greatest reduction in mortality rates over time were observed in the oldest cohorts. This may be due to several interventions including increased perioperative geriatrician input.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy in Adults with Complicated Appendicitis: an Update of the Literature.

AIMS: To review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendicectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis in adult patients, eight years after the last literature review. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to search the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and extract relevant data. Methodological and quality assessment was undertaken with outcome meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, type of study and year of study. Assessment of clinical and statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was conducted. RESULTS: Three randomised control trials (RCTs) (154LA vs 155OA) and 23 case-control trials were included (2034LA vs 2096OA). Methodological quality was low to average but with low statistical heterogeneity. Risk of publication bias was low, and meta-regression indicated shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) in more recent studies, Q = 7.1, P = 0.007. In the combined analysis LA had significantly less surgical site infections [OR = 0.30 (0.22,0.40); p < 0.00001] with reduced time to oral intake [WMD = -0.98 (-1.09,-0.86); P < 0.00001] and LOS [WMD = -3.49(-3.70,-3.29); p < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in intra-abdominal abscess rates [OR = 1.11(0.85,1.45); p = 0.43]. Operative time was longer during LA [WMD = 10.51 (5.14,15.87); p = 0.0001] but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.13) in the RCT subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: LA appears to have significant benefits with improved morbidity compared to OA in complicated appendicitis (level of evidence II).

Laparoscopic vs open approach for transverse colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Transverse colon malignancies have been excluded from all randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic against open colectomies, potentially due to the advanced laparoscopic skills required for dissecting around the middle colic vessels and the associated morbidity. Concerns have been expressed that the laparoscopic approach may compromise the oncological clearance in transverse colon cancer. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the laparoscopic (LPA) to the open (OPA) approach by performing a meta-analysis of long and short term outcomes. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were interrogated. Selected studies were critically appraised and the short-term morbidity and long term oncological outcomes were meta-analyzed. Sensitivity analysis according to the quality of the study, type of procedure (laparoscopic vs laparoscopically assisted) and level of lymphadenectomy was performed. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were also investigated. RESULTS: Eleven case control trials (1415 patients) were included in the study. There was no difference between the LPA and the OPA in overall survival [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.83 (0.56, 1.22); P = 0.34], disease free survival (p = 0.20), local recurrence (p = 0.81) or distant metastases (p = 0.24). LPA was found to have longer operative time [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 45.00 (29.48, 60.52); P < 0.00001] with earlier establishment of oral intake [WMD = -1.68 (-1.84, -1.53); P < 0.00001] and shorter hospital stay [WMD = -2.94 (-4.27, -1.62); P = 0.0001]. No difference was found in relation to anastomotic leakage (p = 0.39), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.25), lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: LPA seems to be safe with equivalent oncological outcomes to OPA and better short term outcomes in selected patient populations. High quality Randomized control trials are required to further investigate the role of laparoscopy in transverse colon cancer.

Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012-2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20-0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25-0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur.