Novel approach to defining major abdominal surgery

Introduction: Over 5.8 million abdominal operations and procedures were recorded in England between April 2021 and March 20221. Although a definition of major surgery has been proposed by the Delphi consensus among European Surgical Association members2, there is no clear consensus regarding which surgical procedures constitute major abdominal surgery (MAS). Despite this, multiple sources in the literature, including perioperative morbidity and mortality scoring systems, national audits, and private healthcare coding schedules3–5, have alluded to this type of surgery without any underlying qualification. To clarify this area, a scoping literature review was conducted to derive a definition of MAS, based on content analysis of the terminology used to describe major abdominal surgical procedures6. MAS was defined as an intraperitoneal operation with no primary involvement of the thorax, involving either luminal resection and/or resection of a solid organ associated with the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of the current study was to verify the discriminative ability of this hypothesized definition of MAS using real-world data analysis and unsupervised machine learning

Mastitis and Mammary Abscess Management Audit (MAMMA) in the UK and Ireland

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre prospective audit was to describe the current practice in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on rates of surgical intervention. METHODS: This audit was conducted in two phases from August 2020 to August 2021; a phase 1 practice survey and a phase 2 prospective audit. Primary outcome measurements for phase 2 included patient management pathway characteristics and treatment type (medical/radiological/surgical). RESULTS: A total of 69 hospitals participated in phase 2 (1312 patients). The key findings were a high overall rate of incision and drainage (21.0 per cent) and a lower than anticipated proportion of ultrasound-guided aspiration of breast abscesses (61.0 per cent). Significant variations were observed regarding the rate of incision and drainage (range 0-100 per cent; P \u3c 0.001) and the rate of needle aspiration (range 12.5-100 per cent; P \u3c 0.001) between individual units. Overall, 22.5 per cent of patients were admitted for inpatient treatment, out of whom which 72.9 per cent were commenced on intravenous antibiotics. The odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment were significantly higher if patients presented at the weekend compared with a weekday (P ≤ 0.023). Breast specialists reviewed 40.9 per cent of all patients directly, despite the majority of patients (74.2 per cent) presenting within working hours on weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in practice exists in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses, with high rates of incision and drainage in certain regions of the UK. There is an urgent need for a national best-practice toolbox to minimize practice variation and standardize patient care

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-08-11, rev-recd 2020-12-04, accepted 2020-12-10, registration 2020-12-11, pub-electronic 2021-03-25, online 2021-03-25, pub-print 2021-05-25Publication status: PublishedAbstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Correction: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: Outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study

Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Correction: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: registration 2021-03-26, online 2021-04-12, pub-electronic 2021-04-12, pub-print 2021-08-31Publication status: PublishedA Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Case report: Acute appendicitis in appendix duplication

Introduction Duplication of the appendix is a very rare presentation. According to the Cave–Wallbridge classification, there are three types of duplicate appendix. Presentation of case A 43 year old female presented with classical symptoms of acute appendicitis, with unremarkable inflammatory markers. The diagnosis was confirmed on pre-operative computer tomography (CT). During laparoscopy two tubular structures were identified: one arising from the tenia libera of the caecum adjacent to the terminal ileum and one retrocaecally at the confluence of the teniae. Both structures were excised using a laparoscopic linear stapler. Histopathological analysis demonstrated the accessory structure to be a microscopically unremarkable blind-ended tubular structure. The other specimen demonstrated acute gangrenous inflammation of the appendix. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged home the following day. Discussion Appendix duplication is rare; however, failure to recognise it in a patient with acute appendicitis could result in a retained source of sepsis, requiring subsequent re-exploration of the abdomen. The case presented here represents a Type B2 according to the Cave-Wallbridge classification and is the most susceptible to inadvertent error due to having appendixes in both typical and atypical anatomical locations. This case also highlights the probability of this diagnosis being missed on pre-operative CT. Conclusion This case report presents a unique opportunity for surgical trainees to review intra-operative laparoscopic images of a duplicate appendix, both to allow them to recognise this pathology if encountered in the future, and to embed the importance of ruling it out with thorough intra-operative examination