Laparoscopy in management of appendicitis in high-, middle-, and low-income countries: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency worldwide. Differences between high- and low-income settings in the availability of laparoscopic appendectomy, alternative management choices, and outcomes are poorly described. The aim was to identify variation in surgical management and outcomes of appendicitis within low-, middle-, and high-Human Development Index (HDI) countries worldwide. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international prospective cohort study. Consecutive sampling of patients undergoing emergency appendectomy over 6 months was conducted. Follow-up lasted 30 days. RESULTS: 4546 patients from 52 countries underwent appendectomy (2499 high-, 1540 middle-, and 507 low-HDI groups). Surgical site infection (SSI) rates were higher in low-HDI (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.33-4.99, p = 0.005) but not middle-HDI countries (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.76-2.52, p = 0.291), compared with high-HDI countries after adjustment. A laparoscopic approach was common in high-HDI countries (1693/2499, 67.7%), but infrequent in low-HDI (41/507, 8.1%) and middle-HDI (132/1540, 8.6%) groups. After accounting for case-mix, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.71, p < 0.001) and SSIs (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33, p < 0.001). In propensity-score matched groups within low-/middle-HDI countries, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.23 95% CI 0.11-0.44) and SSI (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.09-0.45). CONCLUSION: A laparoscopic approach is associated with better outcomes and availability appears to differ by country HDI. Despite the profound clinical, operational, and financial barriers to its widespread introduction, laparoscopy could significantly improve outcomes for patients in low-resource environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02179112

Ward-based Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy (GDFT) in Acute Pancreatitis (GAP) trial: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

IntroductionAcute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas with high risk of developing multiorgan failure and death. There are no effective pharmacological interventions used in current clinical practice. Maintaining fluid and electrolyte balance is the mainstay of supportive management. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in surgical conditions with systemic inflammatory response. There is currently no randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the role of GDFT based on cardiac output parameters in patients with acute pancreatitis in the ward setting. A feasibility trial was designed to determine patient and clinician support for recruitment into an RCT of ward-based GDFT in acute pancreatitis, adherence to a GDFT protocol, safety, participant withdrawal, and to determine appropriate endpoints for a subsequent larger trial to evaluate efficacy.Methods and analysisThe GDFT in Acute Pancreatitis trial is a prospective two-centre feasibility RCT. Eligible adults admitted with new onset of acute pancreatitis will be enrolled and randomised into ward-based GDFT (n=25) or standard fluid therapy (n=25) within 6 hours from the diagnosis and continuing for the following 48 hours. Cardiac output parameters will be monitored with a non-invasive device (Cheetah NICOM; Cheetah Medical). The intervention group will consist of a protocolised GDFT approach consisting of stroke volume optimisation with crystalloid fluid boluses, while the control group will receive standard care fluid therapy as advised by the clinical team. The primary endpoint is feasibility. Secondary endpoints will include safety of the intervention, complications, mortality, admission to intensive care unit, cost and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by the London Central Research Ethics Committee (17/LO/1235, project ID: 221872). The results of this trial will be presented to international conference with interest in general surgery and acute care and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberISRCTN36077283.</jats:sec

Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability

Outcomes of obstructed abdominal wall hernia: results from the UK national small bowel obstruction audit

Background: Abdominal wall hernia is a common surgical condition. Patients may present in an emergency with bowel obstruction, incarceration or strangulation. Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a serious surgical condition associated with significant morbidity. The aim of this study was to describe current management and outcomes of patients with obstructed hernia in the UK as identified in the National Audit of Small Bowel Obstruction (NASBO). Methods: NASBO collated data on adults treated for SBO at 131 UK hospitals between January and March 2017. Those with obstruction due to abdominal wall hernia were included in this study. Demographics, co-morbidity, imaging, operative treatment, and in-hospital outcomes were recorded. Modelling for factors associated with mortality and complications was undertaken using Cox proportional hazards and multivariable regression modelling. Results: NASBO included 2341 patients, of whom 415 (17·7 per cent) had SBO due to hernia. Surgery was performed in 312 (75·2 per cent) of the 415 patients; small bowel resection was required in 198 (63·5 per cent) of these operations. Non-operative management was reported in 35 (54 per cent) of 65 patients with a parastomal hernia and in 34 (32·1 per cent) of 106 patients with an incisional hernia. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9·4 per cent (39 of 415), and was highest in patients with a groin hernia (11·1 per cent, 17 of 153). Complications were common, including lower respiratory tract infection in 16·3 per cent of patients with a groin hernia. Increased age was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio 1·05, 95 per cent c.i. 1·01 to 1·10; P = 0·009) and complications (odds ratio 1·05, 95 per cent c.i. 1·02 to 1·09; P = 0·001). Conclusion: NASBO has highlighted poor outcomes for patients with SBO due to hernia, highlighting the need for quality improvement initiatives in this group

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

Aim The 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. Methods This 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. Results Overall, 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 &lt; 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One 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

Pooled analysis of who surgical safety checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods: In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results: Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89⋅6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60⋅6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0⋅17, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅14 to 0⋅21, P &lt; 0⋅001) or low (363 of 860, 42⋅2 percent; OR 0⋅08, 0⋅07 to 0⋅10, P &lt; 0⋅001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference −9⋅4 (95 per cent c.i. −11⋅9 to −6⋅9) per cent; P &lt; 0⋅001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+12⋅1 (+7⋅0 to +17⋅3) per cent; P &lt; 0⋅001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0⋅60, 0⋅50 to 0⋅73; P &lt; 0⋅001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low-and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion: Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P &lt; 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection:an international, multi-centre, prospective audit

Introduction: The optimal bowel preparation strategy to minimise the risk of anastomotic leak is yet to be determined. This study aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP+Abx) was associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leak when compared to mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP) or no bowel preparation (NBP). Methods: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 Left Sided Colorectal Resection audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective left sided colonic or rectal resection with primary anastomosis between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results: Of 3676 patients across 343 centres in 47 countries, 618 (16.8%) received MBP+ABx, 1945 MBP (52.9%) and 1099 patients NBP (29.9%). Patients undergoing MBP+ABx had the lowest overall rate of anastomotic leak (6.1%, 9.2%, 8.7% respectively) in unadjusted analysis. After case-mix adjustment using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, MBP+Abx was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.52, 0.30–0.92, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.02) but MBP was not (OR 0.92, 0.63–1.36, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.69) compared to NBP. Conclusion: This non-randomised study adds ‘real-world’, contemporaneous, and prospective evidence of the beneficial effects of combined mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in the prevention of anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection across diverse settings. We have also demonstrated limited uptake of this strategy in current international colorectal practice