Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS trial): a multicentre randomized feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30 000 people undergo major emergency abdominal gastrointestinal surgery annually, and 36 per cent of these procedures (around 10 800) are carried out for emergency colorectal pathology. Some 14 per cent of all patients requiring emergency surgery have a laparoscopic procedure. The aims of the LaCeS (laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial were to assess the feasibility, safety and acceptability of performing a large-scale definitive phase III RCT, with a comparison of emergency laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute colorectal pathology. METHODS: LaCeS was designed as a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic feasibility RCT with an integrated qualitative study. Randomization was undertaken centrally, with patients randomized on a 1 : 1 basis between laparoscopic or open surgery. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were recruited across five centres. The overall mean steady-state recruitment rate was 1·2 patients per month per site. Baseline compliance for clinical and health-related quality-of-life data was 99·8 and 93·8 per cent respectively. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 39 (95 per cent c.i. 23 to 58) per cent. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 27 (13 to 46) per cent in the laparoscopic arm and 42 (25 to 61) per cent in the open arm. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery may have an acceptable safety profile. Registration number: ISRCTN15681041 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

ANTECEDENTES: Aproximadamente 30.000 personas se someten cada año una operación de cirugía mayor urgente gastrointestinal de las cuales el 36% (~ 10.800) se realizan por patología colorrectal urgente. Aproximadamente el 14% de todos los pacientes que requieren cirugía urgente son operados mediante abordaje laparoscópico. Los objetivos del ensayo de factibilidad LaCeS (Laparoscopic versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Acute Setting; Cirugía Colorrectal Laparoscópica versus Abierta en Urgencias) fueron evaluar la factibilidad, seguridad y aceptabilidad de realizar un ensayo clínico aleatorizado definitivo a gran escala de fase III comparando la cirugía colorrectal urgente por vía laparoscópica con el abordaje abierto. MÉTODOS: LaCeS se diseñó como un ensayo clínico prospectivo, multicéntrico, simple ciego, de grupos paralelos, pragmático, aleatorizado (factibilidad) con un estudio cualitativo integrado. La asignación al azar se realizó de forma centralizada y los pacientes se asignaron al azar en proporción 1:1 a cirugía laparoscópica o abierta. RESULTADOS: Un total de 64 pacientes fueron reclutados en 5 centros. La tasa media global estable de reclutamiento fue de 1,2 pacientes/mes. El cumplimiento inicial de los datos clínicos y de calidad de vida (HRQoL) fue del 99,8% y del 93,8%, respectivamente. La tasa de conversión de la cirugía laparoscópica a cirugía abierta fue del 39,4% (i.c. del 95%: 22,9% a 57,9%). La tasa de complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días fue del 27,3% (i.c. del 95%: 13,3-45,5) para la cirugía laparoscópica y del 41,9% (i.c. del 95%: 24,6-60,9) para la cirugía abierta. CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía colorrectal urgente por vía laparoscópica puede tener un perfil de seguridad aceptable.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome.

AIM: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. METHOD: This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. CONCLUSION: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

National prospective cohort study of the burden of acute small bowel obstruction.

Background: Small bowel obstruction is a common surgical emergency, and is associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality across the world. The literature provides little information on the conservatively managed group. The aim of this study was to describe the burden of small bowel obstruction in the UK. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in 131 acute hospitals in the UK between January and April 2017, delivered by trainee research collaboratives. Adult patients with a diagnosis of mechanical small bowel obstruction were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, unplanned intensive care admission and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Practice measures, including use of radiological investigations, water soluble contrast, operative and nutritional interventions, were collected. Results: Of 2341 patients identified, 693 (29·6 per cent) underwent immediate surgery (within 24 h of admission), 500 (21·4 per cent) had delayed surgery after initial conservative management, and 1148 (49·0 per cent) were managed non-operatively. The mortality rate was 6·6 per cent (6·4 per cent for non-operative management, 6·8 per cent for immediate surgery, 6·8 per cent for delayed surgery; P = 0·911). The major complication rate was 14·4 per cent overall, affecting 19·0 per cent in the immediate surgery, 23·6 per cent in the delayed surgery and 7·7 per cent in the non-operative management groups (P < 0·001). Cox regression found hernia or malignant aetiology and malnutrition to be associated with higher rates of death. Malignant aetiology, operative intervention, acute kidney injury and malnutrition were associated with increased risk of major complication. Conclusion: Small bowel obstruction represents a significant healthcare burden. Patient-level factors such as timing of surgery, acute kidney injury and nutritional status are factors that might be modified to improve outcomes.

Emergency general surgeons, subspeciality surgeons and the future management of emergency surgery: results of a national survey.

AIM: This study aimed to survey consultants' experience of working as or with emergency general surgery (EGS) surgeons and to investigate the role they fulfil in the management of general and subspeciality emergencies. METHOD: An electronic survey, designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data, was piloted and then circulated to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-two responses were received from 848 recipients (a 29% response rate) covering 104 of 135 (77%) acute NHS Trusts in England. EGS surgeons were in post in 43/141 (30%) hospitals overall and 12/24 (50%) of hospitals in London. Most respondents working in units with EGS surgeons found them to be advantageous (46/63, 73%). Consultants working with EGS surgeons were significantly more likely to support their use (49/63, 78%) than those without them (83/178, 47%) (χ2  = 16.9, P < 0.001). EGS surgeons were considered to improve the delivery of EGS (78%), create time for subspecialists (70%) and provide service (73%). However, there were concerns about the quality of surgery (43%), an insufficient standard of specialist care (54%) and compromise in the training of juniors (25%). Respondents commented on a lack of job structure with a high attrition rate (21%), the insufficient quality of applicants (18%) and that subspecialization and split on-call was preferable (17%). CONCLUSION: Respondents were supportive of the ability of EGS surgeons to relieve pressure on subspecialists; however, there were significant concerns about the sustainability and quality of the EGS surgeon role. Emergency colorectal resections should have the input of a surgeon who performs elective colorectal resections.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease.

AIM: There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology. METHODS: Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines. RESULTS: All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

What are the dietary treatment research priorities for inflammatory bowel disease? A short report based on a priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) involves a multidisciplinary approach comprising medical management and sometimes surgery. Although diet is central to IBD management, the optimal diet for patients with IBD is uncertain. A UK collaborative partnership within the James Lind Alliance was set up between patients, clinicians and other stakeholders to develop research priorities in IBD. The aim of this short report is to provide a comprehensive summary of the research priority findings relating to diet in the treatment of IBD. METHODS: The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was used to develop research priorities in IBD. In brief, patients, clinicians and other stakeholders were invited to provide up to five treatment uncertainties in IBD. These uncertainties were collated, revised and ranked, leading to a final top 10 research questions in IBD. RESULTS: A total of 1671 uncertainties from 531 participants were collected and refined to exclude duplicates leaving 1253 uncertainties. Of these, 348 were categorised as diet-related and grouped according to topic. There were 206 uncertainties related to how diet can be used to treat IBD or alleviate symptoms. Seventy-two percent of diet-related questions came from patients. One broadly diet-related and two diet-specific treatment uncertainties were included in the top 10 research priorities for IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary treatment options in the management of IBD are important research priorities. Almost three-quarters of diet related questions came from patients, who were particularly interested in how diet can impact disease activity and symptom control.

A national patient and public colorectal research agenda: integration of consumer perspectives in bowel disease through early consultation.

AIM: There is a recognized need to include the views of patients and the public in prioritizing health research. This study aimed: (i) to explore patients' views on colorectal research; and (ii) to prioritize research topics with patients and the public. METHOD: In phase 1, 12 charitable organizations and patient groups with an interest in bowel disease were invited to attend a consultation exercise. Participants were briefed on 25 colorectal research topics prioritized by members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Focus groups were conducted and discussions were recorded with field notes. Analysis was conducted using principles of thematic analysis. In phase 2, a free public consultation was undertaken. Participants were recruited from newspaper advertisements, were briefed on the same research topics and were asked to rate the importance of each on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the topics. Univariable linear regression compared recorded demographic details with mean topic scores. RESULTS: Focus groups were attended by 12 patients who highlighted the importance of patient-centred information for trial recruitment and when selecting outcome measures. Some 360 people attended the public consultation, of whom 277 (77%) were recruited. Participants rated 'What is the best way to treat early cancer in the back passage?' highest, with 227 (85%) scoring it 4 or 5. There was no correlation between participant demographics and mean topic scores. CONCLUSION: The present study prioritized a colorectal research agenda with the input of patients and the public. Further research is required to translate this agenda into real improvements in patient care.

Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the association of coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

AIM: The modified Delphi approach is an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field. We have used this technique to survey the entire membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) to reach a consensus on prioritizing clinical research questions in colorectal disease. METHOD: Three rounds of surveys were conducted using a web-based tool. In the first, the ACPGBI membership was invited to submit research questions. In Rounds 2 and 3 they were asked to score questions on priority. A steering group analysed the results of each round to identify those questions ranked as being of highest priority. RESULTS: Five hundred and two questions were submitted in Round 1. Following two rounds of voting and analysis, a list of 25 priority questions was produced, including 15 cancer-related and 10 noncancer-related questions. CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that these results will: (i) set the research agenda over the next few years for the study of colorectal disease in the United Kingdom, (ii) promote development and (iii) define funding of new research and prioritize areas of unmet clinical need where the potential clinical impact is greatest.