Treatment of anal fissure: a survey of surgical practice in Australia and New Zealand.

AIM: The aim was to determine whether or not the clinical management of anal fissure in Australia and New Zealand accords with published guidelines. METHODS: A comprehensive survey based on common clinical scenarios was distributed to 206 colorectal surgeons in Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: The response rate was 44% (91 surgeons). For 19 topic areas, only seven (37%) reached consensus (defined as > 70% majority opinion). Of these, six (86%) agreed with guideline recommendations. Twelve (63%) topic areas demonstrated community equipoise (defined as less than or equal to 70% majority opinion), of which five (42%) agreed with guideline recommendations and seven (58%) disagreed with guidelines. Of the seven topics that disagreed with guidelines, three were based on moderate quality evidence (first line management of acute anal fissure in a young patient, fissure healing and faecal incontinence rates following anocutaneous flap) and four were based on low quality evidence (length of sphincter division during a lateral sphincterotomy in women, management of chronic low-pressure anal fissures postpartum, fissure healing rate following anoplasty with botulinum toxin or sphincterotomy and faecal incontinence rates following repeat sphincterotomy for recurrence). Consensus and/or agreement with guidelines were more prevalent in management when medical therapy failed. CONCLUSION: While areas of consensus mostly agreed with guideline recommendations, there remain many areas of community equipoise which warrant further research.

A systematic review of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.

BACKGROUND: The internet is becoming an increasingly popular resource to support patient decision-making outside of the clinical encounter. The quality of online health information is variable and largely unregulated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery. METHODS: This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017058319). Searches were performed on Google and specialist decision aid repositories using a pre-defined search strategy. Sources were analysed according to three measures: (1) their readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score, (2) DISCERN score and (3) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) minimum standards criteria score (IPDASi, v4.0). RESULTS: Overall, 95 sources were from Google and the specialist decision aid repositories. There were 53 duplicates removed, and 18 sources did not meet the pre-defined eligibility criteria, leaving 24 sources included in the full-text analysis. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score was higher than recommended for patient education materials (48.8 ± 15.6, range 25.2-85.3). Overall quality of sources supporting patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery was poor (median DISCERN score 1/5 ± 1.18, range 1-5). No sources met minimum decision-making standards (median IPDASi score 5/12 ± 2.01, range 1-8). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, easily accessible online health information to support patient decision-making for rectal surgery is of poor quality, difficult to read and does not support shared decision-making. It is recommended that professional bodies and medical professionals seek to develop decision aids to support decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.

Liverpool Ultrasound Pictorial Chart: the development of a new method of documenting anal sphincter injury diagnosed by endoanal ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a pictorial chart that documents ultrasound examination of the anal sphincter. DESIGN: A new pictorial chart (Liverpool Ultrasound Pictorial Chart [LUPIC]) depicting the normal anatomy of the anal sphincter was developed. METHODS: To validate LUPIC, two observers documented the findings of 296 endoanal scans. Reliability was assessed between observers using kappa agreement for presence and position of sphincter defects. To validate the use of LUPIC by different observers, a video of ten endoanal ultrasound scans was reviewed by our local expert (gold standard). Seven clinicians underwent test-retest analysis. Kappa agreement was calculated to assess intra-observer and gold standard versus observer agreement for the overall presence of sphincter defects and compared with the gold standard. Complete agreement for the position and level of sphincter defects was assessed for the five abnormal scans. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Excellent agreement between the two observers was found for the presence (kappa 0.99), position and level of external anal sphincter defects documented using LUPIC. The intra-observer and gold standard versus observer kappa values of experienced clinicians (A-E) showed good agreement for the overall presence of sphincter defects. Complete agreement for the position and level of sphincter defects was found in 23 of 35 (66%) observations. CONCLUSIONS: LUPIC is designed and validated method of documenting anal sphincter injury diagnosed by endoanal ultrasound. Standardisation of endoanal ultrasound findings by using LUPIC may help correlate the degree of damage with patient symptoms.