Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

First genetic analysis of aneurysm genes in familial and sporadic abdominal aortic aneurysm

Genetic causes for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have not been identified and the role of genes associated with familial thoracic aneurysms in AAA has not been explored. We analyzed nine genes associated with familial thoracic aortic aneurysms, the vascular Ehlers–Danlos gene COL3A1 and the MTHFR p.Ala222Val variant in 155 AAA patients. The thoracic aneurysm genes selected for this study were the transforming growth factor-beta pathway genes EFEMP2, FBN1, SMAD3, TGBF2, TGFBR1, TGFBR2, and the smooth muscle cells genes ACTA2, MYH11 and MYLK. Sanger sequencing of all coding exons and exon–intron boundaries of these genes was performed. Patients with at least one first-degree relative with an aortic aneurysm were classified as familial AAA (n = 99), the others as sporadic AAA. We found 47 different rare heterozygous variants in eight genes: two pathogenic, one likely pathogenic, twenty-one variants of unknown significance (VUS) and twenty-three unlikely pathogenic variants. In familial AAA we found one pathogenic and segregating variant (COL3A1 p.Arg491X), one likely pathogenic and segregating (MYH11 p.Arg254Cys), and fifteen VUS. In sporadic patients we found one pathogenic (TGFBR2 p.Ile525Phefs*18) and seven VUS. Thirteen patients had two or more variants. These results show a previously unknown association and overlapping genetic defects between AAA and familial thoracic aneurysms, indicating that genetic testing may help to identify the cause of familial and sporadic AAA. In this view, genetic testing of these genes specifically or in a genome-wide approach may help to identify the cause of familial and sporadic AAA. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00439-015-1567-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

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

International Delphi consensus guidelines for follow-up after prophylactic total gastrectomy: the Life after Prophylactic Total Gastrectomy (LAP-TG) study.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) remains the only means of preventing gastric cancer for people with genetic mutations predisposing to Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC), mainly in the CDH1 gene. The small but growing cohort of people undergoing PTG at a young age are expected to have a life-expectancy close to the general population, however, knowledge of the long-term effects of, and monitoring requirements after, PTG is limited. This study aims to define the standard of care for follow-up after PTG. METHODS: Through a combination of literature review and two-round Delphi consensus of major HDGC/PTG units and physicians, and patient advocates, we produced a set of recommendations for follow-up after PTG. RESULTS: There were 42 first round, and 62 second round, responses from clinicians, allied health professionals and patient advocates. The guidelines include recommendations for timing of assessments and specialties involved in providing follow-up, micronutrient supplementation and monitoring, bone health and the provision of written information. CONCLUSION: While the evidence supporting the guidelines is limited, expert consensus provides a framework to best manage people following PTG, and could support the collection of information on the long-term effects of PTG