Management of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review & national practice survey

BACKGROUND: We aim to establish the evidence base for the recognition and management of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) and to compare this with current practice amongst UK obstetricians and coloproctologists. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and a postal questionnaire survey of consultant obstetricians, trainee obstetricians and consultant coloproctologists was carried out. RESULTS: We found a wide variation in experience of repairing acute anal sphincter injury. The group with largest experience were consultant obstetricians (46.5% undertaking ≥ 5 repairs/year), whilst only 10% of responding colorectal surgeons had similar levels of experience (p < 0.001). There was extensive misunderstanding in terms of the definition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Overall, trainees had a greater knowledge of the correct classification (p < 0.01). Observational studies suggest that a new 'overlap' repair using PDS sutures with antibiotic cover gives better functional results. However, our literature search found only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the technique of repair of OASI, which showed no difference in incidence of anal incontinence at three months. Despite this, there was a wide variation in practice, with 337(50%) consultants, 82 (55%) trainees and 80 (89%) coloproctologists already using the 'overlap' method for repair of a torn EAS (p < 0.001). Although over 50% of colorectal surgeons would undertake long-term follow-up of their patients, this was the practice of less than 10% of obstetricians (p < 0.001). Whilst over 70% of coloproctologists would recommend an elective caesarean section in a subsequent pregnancy, only 22% of obstetric consultants and 14% of trainees (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An agreed classification of OASI, development of national guidelines, formalised training, multidisciplinary management and further definitive research is strongly recommended

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Is histological diagnosis of primary liver carcinomas with fibrous stroma reproducible among experts?

Aims: In the era of targeted therapeutics, histological typing of hepatobiliary carcinomas has major clinical implications. Little is known about the reproducibility of the pathological diagnosis of primary liver carcinomas. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the worldwide variation in the pathological expert diagnoses of primary liver carcinomas with fibrous stroma in patients who did not have cirrhosis. Methods: A single set of slides was selected from 25 tumours, and this set was reviewed independently by 12 pathologists who have worldwide expertise in liver tumours. Reproducibility of the diagnoses was evaluated by Light's κ, and diagnoses were clustered by multidimensional scaling. Immunohistochemistry was performed after histological review. Results: The interobserver reproducibility for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma subtypes and cholangiocarcinomas was poor (κ 0.23-0.52), even when the experts considered that the diagnosis required no additional stains or clinical information. Interestingly, multidimensional scaling revealed three main clusters of tumours: hepatocellular carcinoma with no other specifications (n = 13), fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 3) and cholangiocarcinoma (n = 9). Using immunohistochemistry, these histological clusters correlated with expression of anti-hepatocyte and anti-cytokeratin 19 (p<0.001). Conclusions: The results demonstrate the poor reproducibility among experts of the pathological diagnosis of primary liver carcinomas with fibrous stroma in patients who did not have cirrhosis, and highlight that the systematic use of immunohistochemistry may improve the diagnostic accuracy.link_to_subscribed_fulltex