Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.

BackgroundAn alternative approach to the traditional model of radiologists interpreting screening mammography is necessary due to the shortage of radiologists to interpret screening mammograms in many countries.MethodsWe evaluated the performance of 15 Mexican radiographers, also known as radiologic technologists, in the interpretation of screening mammography after a 6 months training period in a screening setting. Fifteen radiographers received 6 months standardized training with radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) system. A challenging test set of 110 cases developed by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium was used to evaluate their performance. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates, likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) and the area under the subject-specific Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy. A mathematical model simulating the consequences in costs and performance of two hypothetical scenarios compared to the status quo in which a radiologist reads all screening mammograms was also performed.ResultsRadiographer's sensitivity was comparable to the sensitivity scores achieved by U.S. radiologists who took the test but their false-positive rate was higher. Median sensitivity was 73.3 % (Interquartile range, IQR: 46.7-86.7 %) and the median false positive rate was 49.5 % (IQR: 34.7-57.9 %). The median LR+ was 1.4 (IQR: 1.3-1.7 %) and the median AUC was 0.6 (IQR: 0.6-0.7). A scenario in which a radiographer reads all mammograms first, and a radiologist reads only those that were difficult for the radiographer, was more cost-effective than a scenario in which either the radiographer or radiologist reads all mammograms.ConclusionsGiven the comparable sensitivity achieved by Mexican radiographers and U.S. radiologists on a test set, screening mammography interpretation by radiographers appears to be a possible adjunct to radiologists in countries with shortages of radiologists. Further studies are required to assess the effectiveness of different training programs in order to obtain acceptable screening accuracy, as well as the best approaches for the use of non-physician readers to interpret screening mammography

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Patients with Crohn's disease have longer post-operative in-hospital stay than patients with colon cancer but no difference in complications' rate

BACKGROUNDRight hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection are used to treat benign conditions like Crohn's disease (CD) and malignant ones like colon cancer (CC).AIMTo investigate differences in pre- and peri-operative factors and their impact on post-operative outcome in patients with CC and CD.METHODSThis is a sub-group analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology's prospective, multi-centre snapshot audit. Adult patients with CC and CD undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection were included. Primary outcome measure was 30-d post-operative complications. Secondary outcome measures were post-operative length of stay (LOS) at and readmission.RESULTSThree hundred and seventy-five patients with CD and 2,515 patients with CC were included. Patients with CD were younger (median = 37 years for CD and 71 years for CC (P &lt; 0.01), had lower American Society of Anesthesiology score (ASA) grade (P &lt; 0.01) and less comorbidity (P &lt; 0.01), but were more likely to be current smokers (P &lt; 0.01). Patients with CD were more frequently operated on by colorectal surgeons (P &lt; 0.01) and frequently underwent ileocecal resection (P &lt; 0.01) with higher rate of de-functioning/primary stoma construction (P &lt; 0.01). Thirty-day post-operative mortality occurred exclusively in the CC group (66/2515, 2.3%). In multivariate analyses, the risk of post-operative complications was similar in the two groups (OR 0.80, 95%CI: 0.54-1.17; P = 0.25). Patients with CD had a significantly longer LOS (Geometric mean 0.87, 95%CI: 0.79-0.95; P &lt; 0.01). There was no difference in re-admission rates. The audit did not collect data on post-operative enhanced recovery protocols that are implemented in the different participating centers.CONCLUSIONPatients with CD were younger, with lower ASA grade, less comorbidity, operated on by experienced surgeons and underwent less radical resection but had a longer LOS than patients with CC although complication's rate was not different between the two groups

The impact of stapling technique and surgeon specialism on anastomotic failure after right?sided colorectal resection: an international multicentre, prospective audit

Aim There is little evidence to support choice of technique and configuration for stapled anastomoses after right hemicolectomy and ileocaecal resection. This study aimed to determine the relationship between stapling technique and anastomotic failure. Method Any unit performing gastrointestinal surgery was invited to contribute data on consecutive adult patients undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocolic resection to this prospective, observational, international, multicentre study. Patients undergoing stapled, side?to?side ileocolic anastomoses were identified and multilevel, multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explore factors associated with anastomotic leak. Results One thousand three hundred and forty?seven patients were included from 200 centres in 32 countries. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 8.3%. Upon multivariate analysis there was no difference in leak rate with use of a cutting stapler for apical closure compared with a noncutting stapler (8.4% vs 8.0%, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54–1.53, P = 0.72). Oversewing of the apical staple line, whether in the cutting group (7.9% vs 9.7%, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52–1.46, P = 0.60) or noncutting group (8.9% vs 5.7%, OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46–4.23, P = 0.55) also conferred no benefit in terms of reducing leak rates. Surgeons reporting to be general surgeons had a significantly higher leak rate than those reporting to be colorectal surgeons (12.1% vs 7.3%, OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04–2.64, P = 0.04). Conclusion This study did not identify any difference in anastomotic leak rates according to the type of stapling device used to close the apical aspect. In addition, oversewing of the anastomotic staple lines appears to confer no benefit in terms of reducing leak rates. Although general surgeons operated on patients with more high?risk characteristics than colorectal surgeons, a higher leak rate for general surgeons which remained after risk adjustment needs further exploration

Relationship between method of anastomosis and anastomotic failure after right hemicolectomy and ileo-caecal resection: an international snapshot audit

Aim: The anastomosis technique used following right-sided colonic resection is widely variable and may affect patient outcome. This study aimed to assess the association between leak and anastomosis technique (stapled vs handsewn). Method: This was a prospective, multicentre, international audit including patients undergoing elective or emergency right hemicolectomy or ileo-caecal resection operations over a 2-month period in early 2015. The primary outcome measure was the presence of anastomotic leak within 30\ua0days of surgery, determined using a prespecified definition. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to assess the association between leak and anastomosis method, adjusting for patient, disease and operative cofactors, with centre included as a random-effect variable. Results: This study included 3208 patients, of whom 78.4% (n\ua0=\ua02515) underwent surgery for malignancy and 11.7% (n\ua0=\ua0375) underwent surgery for Crohn's disease. An anastomosis was performed in 94.8% (n\ua0=\ua03041) of patients, which was handsewn in 38.9% (n\ua0=\ua01183) and stapled in 61.1% (n\ua0=\ua01858). Patients undergoing handsewn anastomosis were more likely to be emergency admissions (20.5% handsewn vs 12.9% stapled) and to undergo open surgery (54.7% handsewn vs 36.6% stapled). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 8.1% (245/3041), which was similar following handsewn (7.4%) and stapled (8.5%) techniques (P\ua0=\ua00.3). After adjustment for cofactors, the odds of a leak were higher for stapled anastomosis (adjusted OR\ua0=\ua01.43; 95% CI: 1.04\u20131.95; P\ua0=\ua00.03). Conclusion: Despite being used in lower-risk patients, stapled anastomosis was associated with an increased anastomotic leak rate in this observational study. Further research is needed to define patient groups in whom a stapled anastomosis is safe

The relationship between method of anastomosis and anastomotic failure after right hemicolectomy and ileo-caecal resection: an international snapshot audit.

BACKGROUND: Anastomosis technique following right sided colonic resection is widely variable and may affect patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess the association between leak and anastomosis technique (stapled versus handsewn) METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, international audit including patients undergoing elective or emergency right hemicolectomy or ileo-caecal resection operations over a two-month period in early 2015. The primary outcome measure was the presence of anastomotic leak within 30 days of surgery, using a pre-specified definition. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to assess the association between leak and anastomosis method, adjusting for patient, disease and operative cofactors, with centre included as a random effect variable. RESULTS: This study included 3208 patients, of whom 78.4% (n=2515) underwent surgery for malignancy and 11.7% (n=375) for Crohn's disease. An anastomosis was performed in 94.8% (n=3041) of patients, which was handsewn in 38.9% (n=1183) and stapled in 61.1% (n=1858) cases. Patients undergoing handsewn anastomosis were more likely to be emergency admissions (20.5% handsewn versus 12.9% stapled) and to undergo open surgery (54.7% versus 36.6%). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 8.1% (245/3041), which was similar following handsewn (7.4%) and stapled (8.5%) techniques (p=0.3). After adjustment for cofactors, the odds of a leak were higher for stapled anastomosis (adjusted odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.95, p=0.03). DISCUSSION: Despite being used in lower risk patients, stapled anastomosis was associated with an increased anastomotic leak rate in this observational study. Further research is needed to define patient groups in whom a stapled anastomosis is safe. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserve