Patient satisfaction with lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: doctors, nurse and nonmedical endoscopists

Aim Assessment of patient satisfaction with lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGE) comprising colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy is gaining increasing importance. We have now trained non healthcare professionals such as nonmedical endoscopists (NMEs) to perform LGE to overcome shortage of trained endoscopists. The aim of this study was to prospectively determine patient satisfaction, factors affecting satisfaction with LGE and to compare with nurses, NME and medical endoscopists, in terms of patient satisfaction. Method Consecutive patients undergoing LGE answered specially developed patient satisfaction questionnaire at discharge and 24 h thereafter. This questionnaire was a modification of m-Group Health Association of America questionnaire. Construct and face validity of questionnaire were tested by an expert group. Demographic and clinical data was prospectively collected. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine factors influencing patient satisfaction. Results Some 503 patients were surveyed after LGE. Examinations were performed by nurse (n = 105), doctor (n = 191), or NMEs (n = 155). There were no differences between three groups in terms of completion rates/complications. No differences were detected between endoscopists in patient rating for overall satisfaction (P = 0.6), technical skills (P = 0.58), communication skills (P = 0.61) or interpersonal skills (0.59). Multivariate regression analysis showed that higher preprocedure anxiety, history of pelvic operations/hysterectomy and higher pain scores were associated with adverse patient satisfaction and preprocedure anxiety, history of hysterectomy and female gender were associated with higher pain scores. Conclusion This study has shown that there are no differences in patient satisfaction with LGE performed by nurse, doctor or NME. The most important factor affecting patient satisfaction is degree of discomfort/pain experienced by patient

Randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: Entonox vs modified patient-maintained target-controlled propofol

Aim Propofol sedation is often associated with deep sedation and decreased manoeuvrability. Patient-maintained sedation has been used in such patients with minimal side-effects. We aimed to compare novel modified patient-maintained target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol with patient-controlled Entonox inhalation for colonoscopy in terms of analgesic efficacy (primary outcome), depth of sedation, manoeuvrability and patient and endoscopist satisfaction (secondary outcomes). Method One hundred patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive either TCI propofol or Entonox. Patients in the propofol group were administered propofol initially to achieve a target concentration of 1.2 μ g/ml and then allowed to self-administer a bolus of propofol (200 μ g/kg/ml) using a patient-controlled analgesia pump with a handset. Entonox group patients inhaled the gas through a mouthpiece until caecum was reached and then as required. Sedation was initially given by an anaesthetist to achieve a score of 4 (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale), and colonoscopy was then started. Patients completed an anxiety score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression questionnaire), a baseline letter cancellation test and a pain score on a 100-mm visual analogue scale before and after the procedure. All patients completed a satisfaction survey at discharge and 24 h postprocedure. Results The median dose of propofol was 174 mg, and the median number of propofol boluses was four. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of pain recorded (95% confidence interval of the difference -0.809, 5.02) and patient/endoscopist satisfaction. There was no difference between the two groups in either depth of sedation or manoeuvrability. Conclusion Both Entonox and the modified TCI propofol provide equally effective sedation and pain relief, simultaneously allowing patients to be easily manoeuvred during the procedures. © 2010 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2010 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

TME quality in rectal cancer surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The concept of total mesorectal excision has revolutionised rectal cancer surgery. TME reduces the rate of local recurrence and tumour associated mortality. However, in clinical trials only 50% of the removed rectal tumours have an optimal TME quality. Patients: During a period of 36 months we performed 103 rectal resections. The majority of patients (76%; 78/103) received an anterior resection. The remaining patients underwent either abdominoperineal resection (16%; 17/103), Hartmann's procedure (6%; 6/103) or colectomy (2%; 2/103).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 90% (93/103) TME quality control could be performed. 99% (92/93) of resected tumours had optimal TME quality. In 1% (1/93) the mesorectum was nearly complete. None of the removed tumours had an incomplete mesorectum. In 98% (91/93) the circumferential resection margin was negative. Major surgical complications occurred in 17% (18/103). 5% (4/78) of patients with anterior resection had anastomotic leakage. 17% (17/103) developed wound infections. Mortality after elective surgery was 4% (4/95).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Optimal TME quality results can be achieved in all stages of rectal cancer with a rate of morbidity and mortality comparable to the results from the literature. Future studies should evaluate outcome and local recurrence in accordance to the degree of TME quality.</p

Harmonic long shears further reduce operation time in transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Background: Previous research indicates that application of 5-mm harmonic shears rather than diathermia significantly reduces operation time in transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Frequently, however, additional instruments were required to complete resection. We investigated whether the new 5-mm harmonic long shears (H-LS) are better equipped for TEM compared with regular harmonic shears (HS). Methods: Between 2001 and 2006, 162 tumors (117 adenomas, 42 carcinomas, and 3 other tumors; mean distance 6.6 cm, mean area 40 cm2) were excised in 161 patients (82 men, 79 women; mean age 66 years). Results: Eighty-eight resections were performed with HS and 74 with H-LS. Tumor and patient characteristics were similar except for specimen area. Tumors resected by H-LS were on average smaller than those resected by HS (34.4 versus 44.1 cm2; Mann-Whitney U-test: p = 0.027). Mean operation time was 48 min and proportional to area in both groups (univariate analysis of variance p<0.001). Mean operation time was 54 min using HS and 41 min using H-LS (t-test: p<0.001). After correction for area, operation time for H-LS was reduced by 14% compared with HS (t-test: p<0.001). H-LS is singly capable of completing resection in 88% compared with 26% for HS (Mann- Whitney U-test: p<0.001). Mean blood loss was 16 cc for HS and 3 cc for H-LS (p<0.001). Morbidity (11%) and mortality (0.6%) were not different between the two groups (Fisher's exact test). Conclusion: Performing transanal endoscopic microsurgery with 5-mm harmonic long shears reduces operation time compared with regular shears, and completing resection seldom requires other instruments

The Importance of the Pathologist’s Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome

Sacral nerve stimulation versus the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for adult faecal incontinence: the SaFaRI RCT

Background: Preliminary studies using the FENIX™ (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) magnetic sphincter augmentation device suggest that it is safe to use for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence, but efficacy data are limited. Objective: To compare FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence in terms of safety, efficacy, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Design, setting and participants: Multicentre, parallel-group, unblinded, randomised trial comparing FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation in participants suffering moderate to severe faecal incontinence. Interventions: Participants were randomised on an equal basis to either sacral nerve stimulation or FENIX. Follow-up occurred 2 weeks postoperatively and at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomisation. Main outcome and measure: The primary outcome was success, defined as device in use and ≥ 50% improvement in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Between 30 October 2014 and 23 March 2017, 99 participants were randomised across 18 NHS sites (50 participants to FENIX vs. 49 participants to sacral nerve stimulation). The median time from randomisation to FENIX implantation was 57.0 days (range 4.0–416.0 days), and the median time from randomisation to permanent sacral nerve stimulation was 371.0 days (range 86.0–918.0 days). A total of 45 out of 50 participants underwent FENIX implantation and 29 out of 49 participants continued to permanent sacral nerve stimulation. The following results are reported, excluding participants for whom the corresponding outcome was not evaluable. Overall, there was success for 10 out of 80 (12.5%) participants, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups [FENIX 6/41 (14.6%) participants vs. sacral nerve stimulation 4/39 (10.3%) participants]. At least one postoperative complication was experienced by 33 out of 45 (73.3%) participants in the FENIX group and 9 out of 40 (22.5%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group. A total of 15 out of 50 (30%) participants in the FENIX group ultimately had to have their device explanted. Slightly higher costs and quality-adjusted life-years (incremental = £305.50 and 0.005, respectively) were observed in the FENIX group than in the sacral nerve stimulation group. This was reversed over the lifetime horizon (incremental = –£1306 and –0.23 for costs and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively), when sacral nerve stimulation was the optimal option (net monetary benefit = –£3283), with only a 45% chance of FENIX being cost-effective. Limitations: The SaFaRI study was terminated in 2017, having recruited 99 participants of the target sample size of 350 participants. The study is, therefore, substantially underpowered to detect differences between the treatment groups, with significant uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusions: The SaFaRI study revealed inefficiencies in the treatment pathways for faecal incontinence, particularly for sacral nerve stimulation. The success of both FENIX and sacral nerve stimulation was much lower than previously reported, with high postoperative morbidity in the FENIX group. Future work: Further research is needed to clarify the treatment pathways for sacral nerve stimulation and to determine its true clinical and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16077538. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information