Outpatient management of biliary colic: A prospective observational study of prescribing habits and analgesia effectiveness

AbstractBackgroundUncomplicated biliary colic presents a significant health and financial burden to hospitals and primary care services alike. There is little guidance on the correct analgesia to use on an outpatient basis. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of oral analgesics on biliary colic pain and to explore the prescribing habits of community doctors.MethodsConsecutive patients with ultrasound proven symptomatic gallstones completed a questionnaire recording demographics and symptomatology. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) based on the Biliary Symptom Score (BSS) to evaluate the effectiveness of various analgesic agents. Local General Practitioners were also surveyed to establish prescribing practices.ResultsCo-Codamol had the highest mean effectiveness VAS score (6.5/10). Patients with increased BMI, short symptom duration and a BSS >70 were most likely to suffer from severe pain. Patients in a subgroup with severe pain were most likely to have their pain reduced by NSAID analgesia compared to no NSAID (OR 2.20, p = 0.027). This effect remained significant upon multivariable regression (OR 2.52, p = 0.018) in a model containing age and NSAIDs. There was wide variation in the prescribing practice of GPs and hospital doctors.ConclusionsThe range of drugs prescribed for biliary colic is extensive with little evidence base. In this study NSAIDs were the most effective analgesia for patients with severe pain. In the absence of contraindications to their use, physician education or guidance emphasizing the benefits of NSAIDs may potentially reduce symptomatic hospital presentation and admissions for biliary colic

Uncertainties and opportunities in delivering environmentally sustainable surgery:the surgeons' view

Surgery is a carbon‐heavy activity and creates a high volume of waste. Surgical teams around the world want to deliver more environmentally sustainable surgery but are unsure what to do and how to create change. There are many interventions available, but resources and time are limited. Capital investment into healthcare and engagement of senior management are challenging. However, frontline teams can change behaviours and drive wider change. Patients have a voice here too, as they would like to ensure their surgery does not harm their local community but are concerned about the effects on them when changes are made. Environmentally sustainable surgery is at the start of its journey. Surgeons need to rapidly upskill their generic knowledge base, identify which measures they can implement locally and take part in national research programmes. Surgical teams in the NHS have the chance to create a world‐leading programme that can bring change to hospitals around the world. This article provides an overview of how surgeons see the surgical team being involved in environmentally sustainable surgery

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

Prognostic value of lymph node ratio and extramural vascular invasion on survival for patients undergoing curative colon cancer resection

There was no study funding. We are grateful to Tony Rafferty (Tailored Information for the People of Scotland, TIPs) for providing survival data.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Academic requirements for Certificate of Completion of Training in surgical training: Consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training/National Research Collaborative Consensus Group.

BACKGROUND: Surgical trainees are expected to demonstrate academic achievement in order to obtain their certificate of completion of training (CCT). These standards are set by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) and specialty advisory committees (SAC). The standards are not equivalent across all surgical specialties and recognise different achievements as evidence. They do not recognise changes in models of research and focus on outcomes rather than process. The Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) and National Research Collaborative (NRC) set out to develop progressive, consistent and flexible evidence set for academic requirements at CCT. METHODS: A modified-Delphi approach was used. An expert group consisting of representatives from the ASiT and the NRC undertook iterative review of a document proposing changes to requirements. This was circulated amongst wider stakeholders. After ten iterations, an open meeting was held to discuss these proposals. Voting on statements was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale. Each statement was voted on twice, with ≥80% of votes in agreement meaning the statement was approved. The results of this vote were used to propose core and optional academic requirements for CCT. RESULTS: Online discussion concluded after ten rounds. At the consensus meeting, statements were voted on by 25 delegates from across surgical specialties and training-grades. The group strongly favoured acquisition of 'Good Clinical Practice' training and research methodology training as CCT requirements. The group agreed that higher degrees, publications in any author position (including collaborative authorship), recruiting patients to a study or multicentre audit and presentation at a national or international meeting could be used as evidence for the purpose of CCT. The group agreed on two essential 'core' requirements (GCP and methodology training) and two of a menu of four 'additional' requirements (publication with any authorship position, presentation, recruitment of patients to a multicentre study and completion of a higher degree), which should be completed in order to attain CCT. CONCLUSION: This approach has engaged stakeholders to produce a progressive set of academic requirements for CCT, which are applicable across surgical specialties. Flexibility in requirements whilst retaining a high standard of evidence is desirable

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

40 days and 40 nights: Clinical characteristics of major trauma and orthopaedic injury comparing the incubation and lockdown phases of COVID-19 infection

Aims The first death in the UK caused by COVID-19 occurred on 5 March 2020. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of major trauma and orthopaedic patients admitted in the early COVID-19 era. Methods A prospective trauma registry was reviewed at a Level 1 Major Trauma Centre. We divided patients into Group A, 40 days prior to 5 March 2020, and into Group B, 40 days after. Results A total of 657 consecutive trauma and orthopaedic patients were identified with a mean age of 55 years (8 to 98; standard deviation (SD) 22.52) and 393 (59.8%) were males. In all, 344 (approximately 50%) of admissions were major trauma. Group A had 421 patients, decreasing to 236 patients in Group B (36%). Mechanism of injury (MOI) was commonly a fall in 351 (52.4%) patients, but road traffic accidents (RTAs) increased from 56 (13.3%) in group A to 51 (21.6%) in group B (p = 0.030). ICU admissions decreased from 26 (6.2%) in group A to 5 (2.1%) in group B. Overall, 39 patients tested positive for COVID-19 with mean age of 73 years (28 to 98; SD 17.99) and 22 (56.4%) males. Common symptoms were dyspnoea, dry cough, and pyrexia. Of these patients, 27 (69.2%) were nosocomial infections and two (5.1%) of these patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission with 8/39 mortality (20.5%). Of the patients who died, 50% were older and had underlying comorbidities (hypertension and cardiovascular disease, dementia, arthritis). Conclusion Trauma admissions decreased in the lockdown phase with an increased incidence of RTAs. Nosocomial infection was common in 27 (69.2%) of those with COVID-19. Symptoms and comorbidities were consistent with previous reports with noted inclusion of dementia and arthritis. The mortality rate of trauma and COVID-19 was 20.5%, mainly in octogenarians, and COVID-19 surgical mortality was 15.4%

Can we <i>S</i>ave the rectum by watchful waiting or <i>T</i>rans<i>A</i>nal microsurgery following (chemo) <i>R</i>adiotherapy versus total mesorectal excision for early <i>RE</i>ctal <i>C</i>ancer (STAR-TREC study)?::protocol for a multicentre, randomised feasibility study

Introduction Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the highly effective standard treatment for rectal cancer but is associated with significant morbidity and may be overtreatment for low-risk cancers. This study is designed to determine the feasibility of international recruitment in a study comparing organ-saving approaches versus standard TME surgery. Methods and analysis STAR-TREC trial is a multicentre international randomised, three-arm parallel, phase II feasibility study in patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum. The trial is coordinated from Birmingham, UK with national hubs in Radboudumc (the Netherlands) and Odense University Hospital Svendborg UMC (Denmark). Patients with rectal cancer, staged by CT and MRI as ≤cT3b (up to 5 mm of extramural spread) N0 M0 can be included. Patients will be randomised to either standard TME surgery (control), organ-saving treatment using long-course concurrent chemoradiation or organ-saving treatment using short-course radiotherapy. For patients treated with an organ-saving strategy, clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy determines the next treatment step. An active surveillance regime will be performed in the case of a complete clinical regression. In the case of incomplete clinical regression, patients will proceed to local excision using an optimised platform such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery or other transanal techniques (eg, transanal endoscopic operation or transanal minimally invasive surgery). The primary endpoint of this phase II study is to demonstrate sufficient international recruitment in order to sustain a phase III study incorporating pelvic failure as the primary endpoint. Success in phase II is defined as randomisation of at least four cases per month internationally in year 1, rising to at least six cases per month internationally during year 2

Prediction Tools for Unfavourable Outcomes in Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT: Identifying patients at risk for adverse outcomes of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), including recurrence and death, will become increasingly important as novel therapies emerge, which are more effective than traditional approaches but very expensive. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can improve the accuracy of medical decision-making. Several CPRs have been developed for CDI, but none has gained a widespread acceptance. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies describing the derivation or validation of CPRs for unfavourable outcomes of CDI, in medical databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane) and abstracts of conferences. RESULTS: Of 2945 titles and abstracts screened, 13 studies on the derivation of a CPR were identified: two on recurrences, five on complications (including mortality), five on mortality alone and one on response to treatment. Two studies on the validation of different severity indices were also retrieved. Most CPRs were developed as secondary analyses using cohorts assembled for other purposes. CPRs presented several methodological limitations that could explain their limited use in clinical practice. Except for leukocytosis, albumin and age, there was much heterogeneity in the variables used, and most studies were limited by small sample sizes. Eight models used a retrospective design. Only four studies reported the incidence of the outcome of interest, even if this is essential to evaluate the potential usefulness of a model in other populations. Only five studies performed multivariate analyses to adjust for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of weighing variables, of validation, calibration and measures of reproducibility, the weak validities and performances when assessed, and the absence of sensitivity analyses, all led to suboptimal quality and debatable utility of those CPRs. Evidence-based tools developed through appropriate prospective cohorts would be more valuable for clinicians than empirically-developed CPRs