Surgery for fistula-in-ano in a specialist colorectal unit: a critical appraisal

ABSTRACT

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

Phase-I trial of oral fluoropyrimidine anticancer agent (S-1) with concurrent radiotherapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer

In this phase-I trial, we evaluated the safety of S-1, a novel oral fluoropyrimidine anticancer agent, combined with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in unresectable pancreatic cancer patients. Patients had histologically proven unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. S-1 was administered orally twice daily. External-beam radiotherapy was delivered in fractions of 1.25 Gy × 2 per day, totalling 50 Gy per 40 fractions for 4 weeks. S-1 was given at five dose levels: 60 mg m–2 day–1 on days 1–7 and 15–21 (level 1), 1–14 (level 2), and 1–21 (level 3a) and 80 mg m–2 day–1 on days 1–21 (level 3b) and 1–28 (level 4). We studied 17 patients: dose levels 1 (four patients), 2 (four patients), 3a (three patients), 3b (three patients), and 4 (three patients). One patient in level 1 (grade 3 vomiting) and two patients in level 4 (grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 anorexia) showed DLT. No DLT was seen for levels 2, 3a, and 3b. Clinical effects by computed tomography included 5 partial responses (35%), 11 cases of stable disease, and one case of progressive disease. CA19–9 levels of less than half the starting values were observed in 8 of 16 (50%) patients. S-1 at a dose of 80 mg m–2 day–1 given on days 1–21 is safe and recommended for phase-II study in patients with locally advanced and unresectable pancreatic cancer when given with EBRT

A systematic review of non-invasive modalities used to identify women with anal incontinence symptoms after childbirth

© 2018, The International Urogynecological Association. Introduction and hypothesis: Anal incontinence following childbirth is prevalent and has a significant impact upon quality of life (QoL). Currently, there is no standard assessment for women after childbirth to identify these symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify non-invasive modalities used to identify women with anal incontinence following childbirth and assess response and reporting rates of anal incontinence for these modalities. Methods: Ovid Medline, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Collaboration, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched for studies using non-invasive modalities published from January 1966 to May 2018 to identify women with anal incontinence following childbirth. Study data including type of modality, response rates and reported prevalence of anal incontinence were extracted and critically appraised. Results: One hundred and nine studies were included from 1602 screened articles. Three types of non-invasive modalities were identified: validated questionnaires/symptom scales (n = 36 studies using 15 different instruments), non-validated questionnaires (n = 50 studies) and patient interviews (n = 23 studies). Mean response rates were 92% up to 6 weeks after childbirth. Non-personalised assessment modalities (validated and non-validated questionnaires) were associated with reporting of higher rates of anal incontinence compared with patient interview at all periods of follow-up after childbirth, which was statistically significant between 6 weeks and 1 year after childbirth (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that questionnaires can be used effectively after childbirth to identify women with anal incontinence. Given the methodological limitations associated with non-validated questionnaires, assessing all women following childbirth for pelvic-floor symptomatology, including anal incontinence, using validated questionnaires should be considered