Legacy of COVID‐19 – the opportunity to enhance surgical services for patients with colorectal disease

Description to be added.Cannot be left empt

Antibiotics as first-line alternative to appendicectomy in adult appendicitis: 90-day follow-up from a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be managed with non-operative (antibiotic) treatment, but laparoscopic appendicectomy remains the first-line management in the UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic the practice altered, with more patients offered antibiotics as treatment. A large-scale observational study was designed comparing operative and non-operative management of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate 90-day follow-up. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study at 97 sites in the UK and Republic of Ireland included adult patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis that either had surgery or non-operative management. Propensity score matching was conducted using age, sex, BMI, frailty, co-morbidity, Adult Appendicitis Score and C-reactive protein. Outcomes were 90-day treatment failure in the non-operative group, and in the matched groups 30-day complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and total healthcare costs associated with each treatment. RESULTS: A total of 3420 patients were recorded: 1402 (41 per cent) had initial antibiotic management and 2018 (59 per cent) had appendicectomy. At 90-day follow-up, antibiotics were successful in 80 per cent (1116) of cases. After propensity score matching (2444 patients), fewer overall complications (OR 0.36 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.50)) and a shorter median LOS (2.5 versus 3 days, P < 0.001) were noted in the antibiotic management group. Accounting for interval appendicectomy rates, the mean total cost was €1034 lower per patient managed without surgery. CONCLUSION: This study found that antibiotics is an alternative first-line treatment for adult acute appendicitis and can lead to cost reductions

The management of adult appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interim analysis of a UK cohort study

BackgroundAcute appendicitis (AA) is the most common general surgical emergency. Early laparoscopic appendicectomy is the gold-standard management. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) brought concerns of increased perioperative mortality and spread of infection during aerosol generating procedures: as a consequence, conservative management was advised, and open appendicectomy recommended when surgery was unavoidable. This study describes the impact of the first weeks of the pandemic on the management of AA in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsPatients 18 years or older, diagnosed clinically and/or radiologically with AA were eligible for inclusion in this prospective, multicentre cohort study. Data was collected from 23rd March 2020 (beginning of the UK Government lockdown) to 1st May 2020 and included: patient demographics, COVID status; initial management (operative and conservative); length of stay; and 30-day complications. Analysis was performed on the first 500 cases with 30-day follow-up.ResultsThe patient cohort consisted of 500 patients from 48 sites. The median age of this cohort was 35 [26–49.75] years and 233 (47%) of patients were female. Two hundred and seventy-one (54%) patients were initially treated conservatively; with only 26 (10%) cases progressing to an operation. Operative interventions were performed laparoscopically in 44% (93/211). Median length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the conservatively managed group (2 [IQR 1–4] days vs. 3 [2–4], p [less than] 0.001). At 30 days, complications were significantly higher in the operative group (p [less than] 0.001), with no deaths in any group. Of the 159 (32%) patients tested for COVID-19 on admission, only 6 (4%) were positive. ConclusionCOVID-19 has changed the management of acute appendicitis in the UK, with non-operative management shown to be safe and effective in the short-term. Antibiotics should be considered as the first line during the pandemic and perhaps beyond

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries