Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure:a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation

Background: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.Methods: A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality.Results: Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool.Conclusion: The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS (R)) principles across colorectal units in 2019-2020

Aim The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS (R)) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019-2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 ('rarely') to 4 ('always'). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they 'most often' or 'always' adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from 'rarely' to 'always' in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

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 days 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 = 2515) underwent surgery for malignancy and 11.7% (n = 375) underwent surgery 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). Patients undergoing hand-sewn 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 = 0.3). After adjustment for cofactors, the odds of a leak were higher for stapled anastomosis (adjusted OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.95; P = 0.03). 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.This is the peer-reviewed version of the article: Pinkney, T.; Battersby, N.; Bhangu, A.; Chaudhri, S.; El-Hussuna, A.; Frasson, M.; Nepogodiev, D.; Singh, B.; Kovačević, B.; Autora), (i Jos Puno. Relationship between Method of Anastomosis and Anastomotic Failure after Right Hemicolectomy and Ileo-Caecal Resection: An International Snapshot Audit. Colorectal Disease 2017, 19 (8), O296–O311. [https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13646

The counterrotating core and the black hole mass of IC1459

The E3 giant elliptical galaxy IC1459 is the prototypical galaxy with a fast counterrotating stellar core. We obtained one HST/STIS long-slit spectrum along the major axis of this galaxy and CTIO spectra along five position angles. We present self-consistent three-integral axisymmetric models of the stellar kinematics, obtained with Schwarzschild's numerical orbit superposition method. We study the dynamics of the kinematically decoupled core (KDC) in IC1459 and we find it consists of stars that are well-separated from the rest of the galaxy in phase space. The stars in the KDC counterrotate in a disk on orbits that are close to circular. We estimate that the KDC mass is ~0.5% of the total galaxy mass or ~3*10^9 Msun. We estimate the central black hole mass M_BH of IC1459 independently from both its stellar and its gaseous kinematics. Some complications probably explain why we find rather discrepant BH masses with the different methods. The stellar kinematics suggest that M_BH = (2.6 +/- 1.1)*10^9 Msun (3 sigma error). The gas kinematics suggests that M_BH ~ 3.5*10^8 Msun if the gas is assumed to rotate at the circular velocity in a thin disk. If the observed velocity dispersion of the gas is assumed to be gravitational, then M_BH could be as high as ~1.0*10^9 Msun. These different estimates bracket the value M_BH = (1.1 +/- 0.3)*10^9 Msun predicted by the M_BH-sigma relation. It will be an important goal for future studies to assess the reliability of black hole mass determinations with either technique. This is essential if one wants to interpret the correlation between the BH mass and other global galaxy parameters (e.g. velocity dispersion) and in particular the scatter in these correlations (believed to be only ~0.3 dex). [Abridged]Comment: 51 pages, LaTeX with 19 PostScript figures. Revised version, with three new figures and data tables. To appear in The Astrophysical Journal, 578, 2002 October 2

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon pancreatic cancer treatment (CONTACT Study): a UK national observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic ('COVID' cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8-4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6-5.2) months, p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned

UK Head and neck cancer surgical capacity during the second wave of the COVID—19 pandemic: Have we learned the lessons? COVIDSurg collaborative

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in surgical capacity for head and neck cancer in the UK between the first wave (March-June 2020) and the current wave (Jan-Feb 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design REDcap online-based survey of hospital capacity. Setting UK secondary and tertiary hospitals providing head and neck cancer surgery. Participants One representative per hospital was asked to report the capacity for head and neck cancer surgery in that institution. Main outcome measures The principal measures of interests were new patient referrals, capacity in outpatients, theatres and critical care; therapeutic compromises constituting delay to surgery, de-escalated surgery and therapeutic migration to non-surgical primary modality. Results Data were returned from approximately 95% of UK hospitals with a head and neck cancer surgery specialist service. 50% of UK head and neck cancer patients requiring surgery have significantly compromised treatments during the second wave: 28% delayed, 10% have received radiotherapy-based treatment instead of surgery, and 12% have received de-escalated surgery. Surgical capacity has been more severely constrained in the second wave (58% of pre-pandemic level) compared with the first wave (62%) despite the time to prepare. Conclusions Some hospitals are overwhelmed by COVID-19 and unable to offer essential cancer surgery, but all have neighbouring hospitals in their region retaining good (or even normal) capacity. It is noteworthy that very few patients have been appropriately redirected away from the hospitals most constrained by their burden of COVID-19. The paucity of an effective central or regional strategic response to this evident mismatch between demand and surgical capacity is to the detriment of our head and neck cancer patients

Not all waits are equal: An investigation of emergency care patient pathway.

Abstract Background: Increasing pressure in the United Kingdom (UK) urgent care system has led to Emergency Departments (EDs) failing to meet the national requirement that 95% of patients are admitted, discharged or transferred within 4-h of arrival. Despite the target being the same for all acute hospitals, individual Trusts organise their services in different ways. The impact of this variation on patient journey time and waiting is unknown. Our study aimed to apply the Lean technique of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to investigate care processes and delays in patient journeys at four contrasting hospitals. Methods: VSM timing data were collected for patients accessing acute care at four hospitals in South West England. Data were categorised according to waits and activities, which were compared across sites to identify variations in practice from the patient viewpoint. We included Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) to fully interpret our findings; observations and initial findings were considered in a PPI workshop. Results: One hundred eight patients were recruited, comprising 25,432 min of patient time containing 4098 episodes of care or waiting. The median patient journey was 223 min (3 h, 43 min); just within the 4-h target. Although total patient journey times were similar between sites, the stage where the greatest proportion of waiting occurred varied. Reasons for waiting were dominated by waits for beds, investigations or results to be available. From our sample we observed that EDs without a discharge/clinical decision area exhibited a greater proportion of waiting time following an admission or discharge decision. PPI interpretation indicated that patients who experience waits at the beginning of their journey feel more anxious because they are ‘not in the system yet’. Conclusions: The novel application of VSM analysis across different hospitals, coupled with PPI interpretation, provides important insight into the impact of care provision on patient experience. Measures that could reduce patient waiting include automatic notification of test results, and the option of discharge/clinical decision areas for patients awaiting results or departure. To enhance patient experience, good communication with patients and relatives about reasons for waits is essential. Keywords: Health service research, Acute care, Emergency admissions, Patient care, Value stream mapping, Emergency department, Patient public involvemen

The impact of pre‐operative intravenous iron on quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery: outcomes from the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer‐associated anaemia (IVICA) trial

Anaemia is associated with a reduction in quality of life, and is common in patients with colorectal cancer . Werecently reported thefindings of the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trialcomparing haemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements following intravenous or oral iron replacement inanaemic colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. In this follow-up study, we compared theefficacy of intravenous and oral iron at improving quality of life in this patient group. We conducted amulticentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Anaemic colorectal cancer patients were randomlyallocated at least two weeks pre-operatively, to receive either oral (ferrous sulphate) or intravenous (ferriccarboxymaltose) iron. We assessed haemoglobin and quality of life scores at recruitment, immediately beforesurgery and at outpatient review approximately three months postoperatively, using the Short Form 36,EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia questionnaires. Werecruited 116 anaemic patients across seven UK centres (oral iron n=61 (53%), and intravenous iron n=55(47%)). Eleven quality of life components increased by a clinically significant margin in the intravenous irongroup between recruitment and surgery compared with one component for oral iron. Median (IQR [range])visual analogue scores were significantly higher with intravenous iron at a three month outpatient review (oraliron 70, (60–85 [20–95]); intravenous iron 90 (80–90 [50–100]), p=0.001). The Functional Assessment ofCancer Therapy–Anaemia score comprises of subscales related to cancer, fatigue and non-fatigue itemsrelevant to anaemia. Median outpatient scores were higher, and hence favourable, for intravenous iron on theFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia subscale (oral iron 66 (55–72 [23–80]); intravenous iron 71(66–77 [46–80]); p=0.002), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia trial outcome index (oral iron108 (90–123 [35–135]); intravenous iron 121 (113–124 [81–135]); p=0.003) and Functional Assessment ofCancer Therapy–Anaemia total score (oral iron 151 (132–170 [69–183]); intravenous iron 168 (160–174 [125–186]); p=0.005). Thesefindings indicate that intravenous iron is more efficacious at improving quality of lifescores than oral iron in anaemic colorectal cancer patients