Management of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction: opportunities to improve care?

BACKGROUND: Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) is a functional bowel obstruction characterised by colonic dilatation in the absence of mechanical obstruction on imaging. Complications include bowel ischaemia, perforation and death. The aim of this study was to explore outcomes for patients treated for ACPO and to assess adherence to current ACPO treatment guidelines. METHODS: This is a retrospective service evaluation and included patients with a diagnosis of ACPO between 1 March 2018 and 31 March 2023. Process measures were identified following discussion with the clinical team from published guidance. Patients were identified using clinical coding and radiological text reports. Cases were eligible for inclusion if they had radiologically confirmed ACPO. Data were collected following review of patient notes into Microsoft Excel. Descriptive analysis was performed with no formal statistical assessment. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were identified, of whom 13 were admitted under general surgery. All patients received admission bloods (n=45). Nearly all patients had computed tomography imaging (43/45, 96%). Only 3/45 (6.7%) of the patients received optimal conservative management (intravenous infusion, nil by mouth, flatus tube, treatment of reversible causes). In all, 11/45 (24%) required further treatment, of whom 7 received this within 72 h. The leading (11/45) complication following diagnosis of ACPO was hospital-acquired pneumonia. Mortality was seen in 9/45. CONCLUSIONS: ACPO is often managed remotely by general surgeons. This may impact on the quality of conservative management, and timeliness of endoscopic or pharmacological intervention. Further work is needed to optimise management.

Is there a role for prophylactic mesh in abdominal wall closure after emergency laparotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are a common complication of emergency laparotomy and are associated with significant morbidity. Recent studies have found a reduction in incisional hernias when mesh is placed prophylactically during abdominal closure in elective laparotomies. This systematic review will assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement in emergency laparotomy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42018109283). Papers were dual screened for eligibility, and included when a comparison was made between closure with prophylactic mesh and closure with a standard technique, reported using a comparative design (i.e. case-control, cohort or randomised trial), where the primary outcome was incisional hernia. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in non-randomised studies tool. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia rate was performed to estimate risk ratio using a random effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach). RESULTS: 332 studies were screened for eligibility, 29 full texts were reviewed and 2 non-randomised studies were included. Both studies were biased due to confounding factors, as closure technique was based on patient risk factors for incisional hernia. Both studies found significantly fewer incisional hernias in the mesh groups [3.2% vs 28.6% (p < 0.001) and 5.9% vs 33.3% (p = 0.0001)]. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia risk favoured prophylactic mesh closure [risk ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.6-0.35, p < 0.001)]. Neither study found an association between mesh and infection or enterocutaneous fistula. CONCLUSION: This review found that there are limited data to assess the effect or safety profile of prophylactic mesh in the emergency laparotomy setting. The current data cannot reliably assess the use of mesh due to confounding factors, and a randomised controlled trial is required to address this important clinical question.

Patients' inability to perform a preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test or demonstrate an anaerobic threshold is associated with inferior outcomes after major colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients with poor functional capacity, determined by oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (AT) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), experience longer hospital stays and worse short- and medium-term survival. However, previous studies excluded patients who were unable to perform a CPET or who failed to demonstrate an AT. We hypothesized that such patients are at risk of inferior outcomes after elective surgery. METHODS: All patients undergoing major colorectal surgery attempted CPET to assist in the planning of care. Patients were stratified by their test results into Fit (AT ≥ 11.0 ml O2 kg(-1) min(-1)), Unfit (AT < 11.0 ml O2 kg(-1) min(-1)), or Unable to CPET groups (failed to pedal or demonstrate an AT). For each group, we determined hospital stay and mortality. RESULTS: Between March 2009 and April 2010, 269 consecutive patients were screened, and proceeded to bowel resection. Median hospital stay was 8 days (IQR 5.1-13.4) and there were 44 deaths (16%) at 2 yr; 26 (9.7%) patients were categorized as Unable to CPET, 69 (25.7%) Unfit and 174 (64.7%) Fit. There were statistically significant differences between the three groups in hospital stay [median (IQR) 14.0 (10.5-23.8) vs 9.9 (5.5-15) vs 7.1 (4.9-10.8) days, P < 0.01] and mortality at 2 yr [11/26 (42%) vs 14/69 (20%) vs 19/174 (11%), respectively (P < 0.01)] although the differences between Unable and Unfit were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' inability to perform CPET is associated with inferior outcomes after major colorectal surgery. Future studies evaluating CPET in risk assessment for major surgery should report outcomes for this subgroup.

How do you measure performance as a colonoscopist?

AIM: The aim of this study was to describe an easy and reproducible method of measuring clinical performance in colonoscopy. METHOD: Data from all endoscopy procedures performed within the main endoscopy unit at Derriford Hospital between January and December 2007 were analysed. Points were allocated for given procedures. A local health economic analysis revealed that at least 8 points (or four colonoscopies) must be performed to meet list costs. The clinical performance was described as a capability index of crude Caecal Intubation Rate (CIR) vs the mean Points Performed/Endoscopy List (points/list). RESULTS: Overall, 3884 colonoscopies were performed, with a mean crude CIR of 89.6% and 8.3 points/List. Only 7/23 endoscopists consistently met the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) standard in a cost-effective way. An annual colonoscopy rate of ≥ 150 cases was associated with higher points per list (points/list) (P = 0.003). Endoscopists offering ≥ 15% of cases as training cases had significantly higher crude CIRs and points/list (P = 0.051; P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical performance is a function of quality provided in a cost-effective way. Our capability index is an effective and reproducible way of measuring clinical performance. Training was not associated with reduced volume.