Refractive change following pseudophakic vitrectomy: a retrospective review

Background To assess the occurrence and magnitude of refractive change in pseudophakic eyes undergoing 20 gauge pars plana vitrectomy without scleral buckling and to investigate possible aetiological factors. Methods Retrospective case note review of 87 pseudophakic eyes undergoing 20 gauge pars plana vitrectomy for a variety of vitreo-retinal conditions over a three-year period. Anterior chamber depth (ACD) was measured before and after vitrectomy surgery in 32 eyes. Forty-three pseudophakic fellow eyes were used as controls. Results Eighty-seven eyes (84 patients) were included in the study. Mean spherical equivalent refraction prior to vitrectomy was -0.20 dioptres, which changed to a mean of -0.65 dioptres postoperatively (standard deviation of refractive change 0.59, range-2.13 to 0.75 dioptres) (p < 0.001). Sixty-one of the 87(70%) eyes experienced a myopic shift and 45(52%) eyes had a myopic shift of -0.5 dioptres or more. Mean fellow eye refraction was -0.19 dioptres preoperatively and -0.17 dioptres postoperatively (p = 0.14)(n = 37) Mean ACD preoperatively was 3.29 mm and postoperatively 3.27 mm (p = 0.53) (n = 32) and there was no significant change in ACD with tamponade use. Regression analysis revealed no statistically significant association between changes in anterior chamber depth, as well as a wide variety of other pre-, intra and postoperative factors examined, and the refractive change observed. Conclusion Significant refractive changes occur in some pseudophakic patients undergoing 20 g pars plana vitrectomy. The mean change observed was a small myopic shift but the range was large. The aetiology of the refractive change is uncertain

The effects of cancer therapies on physical fitness before oesophagogastric cancer surgery: a prospective, blinded, multi-centre, observational, cohort study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Neoadjuvant cancer treatment is associated with improved survival following major oesophagogastric cancer surgery. The impact of neoadjuvant chemo/chemoradiotherapy on physical fitness and operative outcomes is however unclear. This study aims to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant chemo/chemoradiotherapy on fitness and post-operative mortality. / Methods: Patients with oesophagogastric cancer scheduled for chemo/chemoradiotherapy and surgery were recruited to a prospective, blinded, multi-centre, observational cohort study. Primary outcomes were changes in fitness with chemo/chemoradiotherapy, measured using cardiopulmonary exercise testing and its association with mortality one-year after surgery. Patients were followed up for re-admission at 30-days, in-hospital morbidity and quality of life (exploratory outcomes). / Results: In total, 384 patients were screened, 217 met the inclusion criteria, 160 consented and 159 were included (72% male, mean age 65 years). A total of 132 patients (83%) underwent chemo/chemoradiotherapy, 109 (71%) underwent chemo/chemoradiotherapy and two exercise tests, 100 (63%) completed surgery and follow-up. A significant decline in oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold and oxygen uptake peak was observed following chemo/chemoradiotherapy: -1.25ml.kg-1.min-1 (-1.80 to -0.69) and -3.02ml.kg-1.min-1 (-3.85 to -2.20); p<0.0001). Baseline chemo/chemoradiotherapy anaerobic threshold and peak were associated with one-year mortality (HR=0.72, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.88; p=0.001 and HR=0.85, 0.76 to 0.95; p=0.005). The change in physical fitness was not associated with one-year mortality. / Conclusion: Chemo/chemoradiotherapy prior to oesophagogastric cancer surgery reduced physical fitness. Lower baseline fitness was associated with reduced overall survival at one-year. Careful consideration of fitness prior to chemo/chemoradiotherapy and surgery is urgently needed

Systematic development and feasibility testing of a multibehavioural digital prehabilitation intervention for patients approaching major surgery (iPREPWELL): A study protocol

Improving outcomes for people undergoing major surgery, specifically reducing perioperative morbidity and mortality remains a global health challenge. Prehabilitation involves the active preparation of patients prior to surgery, including support to tackle risk behaviours that mediate and undermine physical and mental health and wellbeing. The majority of prehabilitation interventions are delivered in person, however many patients express a preference for remotely-delivered interventions that provide them with tailored support and the flexibility. Digital prehabilitation interventions offer scalability and have the potential to benefit perioperative healthcare systems, however there is a lack of robustly developed and evaluated digital programmes for use in routine clinical care. We aim to systematically develop and test the feasibility of an evidence and theory-informed multibehavioural digital prehabilitation intervention ‘iPREPWELL’ designed to prepare patients for major surgery. The intervention will be developed with reference to the Behaviour Change Wheel, COM-B model, and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Codesign methodology will be used to develop a patient intervention and accompanying training intervention for healthcare professionals. Training will be designed to enable healthcare professionals to promote, support and facilitate delivery of the intervention as part of routine clinical care. Patients preparing for major surgery and healthcare professionals involved with their clinical care from two UK National Health Service centres will be recruited to stage 1 (systematic development) and stage 2 (feasibility testing of the intervention). Participants recruited at stage 1 will be asked to complete a COM-B questionnaire and to take part in a qualitative interview study and co-design workshops. Participants recruited at stage 2 (up to twenty healthcare professionals and forty participants) will be asked to take part in a single group intervention study where the primary outcomes will include feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of intervention delivery, receipt, and enactment. Healthcare professionals will be trained to promote and support use of the intervention by patients, and the training intervention will be evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. The multifaceted and systematically developed intervention will be the first of its kind and will provide a foundation for further refinement prior to formal efficacy testing

Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Priority setting in health care is a challenge because demand for services exceeds available resources. The increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures by patients, health care institutions and industry, places added pressure on surgeons to acquire the appropriate skills to adopt innovative procedures. Such innovations are often initiated and introduced by surgeons in the hospital setting. Decision-making processes for the adoption of surgical innovations in hospitals have not been well studied and a standard process for their introduction does not exist. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the decision-making process for the adoption of a new technology for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in an academic health sciences centre to better understand how decisions are made for the introduction of surgical innovations at the hospital level.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative case study of the decision to adopt EVAR was conducted using a modified thematic analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews. Accountability for Reasonableness was used as a conceptual framework for fairness in priority setting processes in health care organizations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were two key decisions regarding EVAR: the decision to adopt the new technology in the hospital and the decision to stop hospital funding. The decision to adopt EVAR was based on perceived improved patient outcomes, safety, and the surgeons' desire to innovate. This decision involved very few stakeholders. The decision to stop funding of EVAR involved all key players and was based on criteria apparent to all those involved, including cost, evidence and hospital priorities. Limited internal communications were made prior to adopting the technology. There was no formal means to appeal the decisions made.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The analysis yielded recommendations for improving future decisions about the adoption of surgical innovations. ese empirical findings will be used with other case studies to help develop guidelines to help decision-makers adopt surgical innovations in Canadian hospitals.</p

Research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery: an international Delphi study

Background Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Methods The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority. Results A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery. Conclusions This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery