European consensus on the concepts and measurement of the pathophysiological neuromuscular responses to passive muscle stretch

Background and purpose To support clinical decision-making in central neurological disorders, a physical examination is used to assess responses to passive muscle stretch. However, what exactly is being assessed is expressed and interpreted in different ways. A clear diagnostic framework is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to arrive at unambiguous terminology about the concepts and measurement around pathophysiological neuromuscular response to passive muscle stretch. Methods During two consensus meetings, 37 experts from 12 European countries filled online questionnaires based on a Delphi approach, followed by plenary discussion after rounds. Consensus was reached for agreement ≥75%. Results The term hyper-resistance should be used to describe the phenomenon of impaired neuromuscular response during passive stretch, instead of for example ‘spasticity’ or ‘hypertonia’. From there, it is essential to distinguish non-neural (tissue-related) from neural (central nervous system related) contributions to hyper-resistance. Tissue contributions are elasticity, viscosity and muscle shortening. Neural contributions are velocity dependent stretch hyperreflexia and non-velocity dependent involuntary background activation. The term ‘spasticity’ should only be used next to stretch hyperreflexia, and ‘stiffness’ next to passive tissue contributions. When joint angle, moment and electromyography are recorded, components of hyper-resistance within the framework can be quantitatively assessed. Conclusions A conceptual framework of pathophysiological responses to passive muscle stretch is defined. This framework can be used in clinical assessment of hyper-resistance and will improve communication between clinicians. Components within the framework are defined by objective parameters from instrumented assessment. These parameters need experimental validation in order to develop treatment algorithms based on the aetiology of the clinical phenomena

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

© 2020 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdBackground: Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function. Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien–Dindo classification system. Results: A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9·2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4–7) and 7 (6–8) days respectively (P < 0·001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6·6 versus 8·0 per cent; P = 0·499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0·90, 95 per cent c.i. 0·55 to 1·46; P = 0·659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34·7 versus 39·5 per cent; major 3·3 versus 3·4 per cent; P = 0·110). Conclusion: Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients