Shared genetic susceptibility between trigger finger and carpal tunnel syndrome: a genome-wide association study

Background: Trigger finger and carpal tunnel syndrome are the two most common non-traumatic connective tissue disorders of the hand. Both of these conditions frequently co-occur, often in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, this phenotypic association is poorly understood. Hypothesising that the co-occurrence of trigger finger and carpal tunnel syndrome might be explained by shared germline predisposition, we aimed to identify a specific genetic locus associated with both diseases. Methods: In this genome-wide association study (GWAS), we identified 2908 patients with trigger finger and 436 579 controls from the UK Biobank prospective cohort. We conducted a case-control GWAS for trigger finger, followed by co-localisation analyses with carpal tunnel syndrome summary statistics. To identify putative causal variants and establish their biological relevance, we did fine-mapping analyses and expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analyses, using fibroblasts from healthy donors (n=79) and tenosynovium samples from patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (n=77). We conducted a Cox regression for time to trigger finger and carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis against plasma IGF-1 concentrations in the UK Biobank cohort. Findings: Phenome-wide analyses confirmed a marked association between carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger finger in the participants from UK Biobank (odds ratio [OR] 11·97, 95% CI 11·1–13·0; p1·04, p<0·02). Interpretation: In this GWAS, the DIRC3 locus on chromosome 2 was significantly associated with both carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger finger, possibly explaining their co-occurrence. The disease-protective allele of rs62175241 was associated with increased expression of long non-coding RNA DIRC3 and its transcriptional target, IGBP5, an antagonist of IGF-1 signalling. These findings suggest a model in which IGF-1 is a driver of both carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger finger, and in which the DIRC3-IGFBP5 axis directly antagonises fibroblastic IGF-1 signalling. Funding: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P &lt; 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Management of COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study of drain placement practices in colorectal surgery

Aim: Postoperative drains have historically been used for the prevention and early detection of intra-abdominal collections. However, current evidence suggests that prophylactic drain placement following colorectal surgery has no significant clinical benefit. This is reflected in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines, which recommend against their routine use. The Ileus Management International study found more than one-third of participating centres across the world routinely used drains in the majority of colorectal resections. The aim of the present study is to audit international compliance with ERAS guidelines regarding the use of postoperative drains in colorectal surgery. Method: This prospective, multicentre audit will be conducted via the student- and trainee-led EuroSurg Collaborative network across Europe, South Africa and Australasia. Data will be collected on consecutive patients undergoing elective and emergency colorectal surgery with 30-day follow-up. This will include any colorectal resection, formation of colostomy/ileostomy and reversal of stoma. The primary end-point will be adherence to ERAS guidelines for intra-abdominal drain placement. Secondary outcomes will include the following: time to diagnosis of intra-abdominal postoperative collections; output and time to removal of drains; and 30-day postoperative complications defined by the Clavien–Dindo classification. Conclusion: This protocol describes the methodology for the first international audit of intra-abdominal drain placement after colorectal surgery. The study will be conducted across a large collaborative network with quality assurance and data validation strategies. This will provide a clear understanding of current practice and novel evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intra-abdominal drain placement in colorectal surgical patients

SARS-CoV-2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30&nbsp;days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7&nbsp;days before to 30&nbsp;days after surgery); recent (1&ndash;6&nbsp;weeks before surgery); previous (&ge;7&nbsp;weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1&ndash;2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2&ndash;3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9&ndash;3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3&ndash;6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly

Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. An international, prospective cohort study

Intraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. Method: COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement. Results: Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48-5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61-1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67-2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87-2.99, p = 0.128). Conclusion: This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

Background: Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function.Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.Results: A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9.2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4-7) and 7 (6-8) days respectively (P &lt; 0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6.6 versus 8.0 per cent; P = 0.499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0.90, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.46; P = 0.659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34.7 versus 39.5 per cent; major 3.3 versus 3.4 per cent; P = 0.110).Conclusion: Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients