Standardizing and monitoring the delivery of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials

Factors Associated With Loss to Follow-Up in Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Loss to follow-up (LTFU) distorts results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Understanding trial characteristics that contribute to LTFU may enable investigators to anticipate the extent of LTFU and plan retention strategies. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the extent of LTFU in surgical RCTs and evaluate associations between trial characteristics and LTFU.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed Central were searched for surgical RCTs published between January 2002 and December 2021 in the 30 highest impact factor surgical journals. Two-hundred eligible RCTs were randomly selected. The pooled LTFU rate was estimated using random intercept Poisson regression. Associations between trial characteristics and LTFU were assessed using metaregression.

RESULTS

The 200 RCTs included 37,914 participants and 1307 LTFU events. The pooled LTFU rate was 3.10 participants per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-5.17). Trial characteristics associated with reduced LTFU were standard-of-care outcome assessments (rate ratio [RR] 0.17; 95% CI 0.06-0.48), surgery for transplantation (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.43), and surgery for cancer (RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.02-0.53). Increased LTFU was associated with patient-reported outcomes (RR 14.21; 95% CI 4.82-41.91) and follow-up duration ≥ three months (odds ratio 10.09; 95% CI 4.79-21.28).

CONCLUSIONS

LTFU in surgical RCTs is uncommon. Participants may be at increased risk of LTFU in trials with outcomes assessed beyond the standard of care, surgical indications other than cancer or transplant, patient-reported outcomes, and longer follow-up. Investigators should consider the impact of design on LTFU and plan retention strategies accordingly.

Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice.

METHODS

PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'.

CONCLUSION

Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.

A systematic review of participant descriptors reported in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction

AIM

Reporting of participant descriptors in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) can help identify characteristics associated with favourable outcomes and allow comparison with other studies and real-world clinical populations. The aim was to identify the pattern of participant descriptors reported in studies assessing interventions for ASBO.

METHOD

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021281031) and reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Systematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were undertaken to identify studies assessing operative and non-operative interventions for adults with ASBO. Studies were dual screened for inclusion. Descriptors were categorised into conceptual domains by the research team.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2648 studies, of which 73 were included. A total of 156 unique descriptors were identified. On average, studies reported 12 descriptors. The most frequently reported descriptors were sex, age, SBO aetiology, history of abdominal surgery, BMI and ASA classification. The highest number of descriptors in a single study was 34, compared to the lowest number of descriptors which was one. Pathway factors were the least frequently described domain. Overall, 37 descriptors were reported in just one study.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consistency in participant descriptors reported in studies of SBO. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the descriptors were used infrequently. This makes it challenging to assess whether study participants are representative of the wider population. Further work is required to develop a Core Descriptor Set to standardise the reporting of patient characteristics and reduce heterogeneity between studies.

Randomized controlled trials comparing gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review examining validity and applicability to wider clinical practice

Consideration of how applicable the results of surgical trials are to clinical practice is important to inform decision-making. Randomized controlled trials comparing at least two surgical interventions (of gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy) for severe and complex obesity were examined using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, to consider how applicable the trial results are to clinical practice, and the Risk of Bias 2 tool, to examine validity. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies published between November 2013 and June 2021, and 15 were identified. Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, three were classified as pragmatic, with good applicability to clinical practice. Ten had more explanatory domains but did include some pragmatic characteristics, and two were predominantly explanatory. This was due to some trial design features that would not be considered applicable to the wider clinical setting, including being single-centered, having prescribed intervention delivery methods, and intensive follow-up regimens. Only two trials had low risk of bias, of which one was considered pragmatic. Three had high risk of bias. Overall, few trials in bariatric surgery are pragmatic with low risk of bias. Well-designed pragmatic trials are needed to inform practice and reduce research waste.

The deconstructed procedural description in robotic colorectal surgery

Increasing robotic surgical utilisation in colorectal surgery internationally has strengthened the need for standardised training. Deconstructed procedural descriptions identify components of an operation that can be integrated into proficiency-based progression training. This approach allows both access to skill level appropriate training opportunities and objective and comparable assessment. Robotic colorectal surgery has graded difficulty of operative procedures lending itself ideally to component training. Developing deconstructed procedural descriptions may assist in the structure and progression components in robotic colorectal surgical training. There is no currently published guide to procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical or assessment of their training utility. This scoping review was conducted in June 2022 following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify which robotic colorectal surgical procedures have available component-based procedural descriptions. Secondary aims were identifying the method of development of these descriptions and how they have been adapted in a training context. 20 published procedural descriptions were identified covering 8 robotic colorectal surgical procedures with anterior resection the most frequently described procedure. Five publications included descriptions of how the procedural description has been utilised for education and training. From these publications terminology relating to using deconstructed procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical training is proposed. Development of deconstructed robotic colorectal procedural descriptions (DPDs) in an international context may assist in the development of a global curriculum of component operating competencies supported by objective metrics. This will allow for standardisation of robotic colorectal surgical training and supports a proficiency-based training approach.

Reprint of: 'A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance'

The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer

AIM

There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA.

METHOD

A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.

mparing Urolift and tandard ransurethral resection of prostate head of adiotherapy in men with urinary symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement in Southwest London and North Cumbria (CO-STAR): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy with an enlarged prostate can have short-term and long-term urinary complications. Currently, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the mainstay surgical intervention for men with urinary symptoms due to an enlarged prostate prior to radiotherapy. UroLift (NeoTract, Pleasanton, CA, USA) is a recent minimally invasive alternative, widely used in benign disease but is untested in men with prostate cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, two-arm study designed in collaboration with a Patient Reference Group to assess the feasibility of randomising men with prostate cancer and coexisting urinary symptoms due to prostate enlargement to TURP or UroLift ahead of radiotherapy. 45 patients will be enrolled and randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated programme to TURP or UroLift. Recruitment and retention will be assessed over a 12 month period. Information on clinical outcomes, adverse events and costs will be collected. Clinical outcomes and patient reported outcome measures will be measured at baseline, 6 weeks postintervention and 3 months following radiotherapy. A further 12 in-depth interviews will be conducted with a subset of patients to assess acceptability using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Descriptive analysis on all outcomes will be performed using Stata (StataCorp V.2021).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national meetings and disseminated to patients via social media, charity and hospital websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05840549.

Visualization of the recurrent laryngeal nerve alone versus intraoperative nerve monitoring in primary thyroidectomy: a framework approach to a missing typology

INTRODUCTION

Surgical studies evaluating a device or technology in comparison to an established surgical technique should accurately report all the important components of the surgical technique in order to reduce the risk of intervention bias. In the debate of visualization of the recurrent laryngeal nerve alone (VONA) versus intraoperative nerve monitoring (IONM) during thyroidectomy, surgical technique plays a key role in both strategies. Our aim was to investigate whether the surgical technique was considered as a risk of intervention bias by relevant meta-analyses and reviews and if steps of surgical intervention were described in their included studies.

METHODS

We searched PUBMED, CENTRAL-Cochrane library, PROSPERO and GOOGLE for reviews and meta-analyses focusing on the comparison of IONM to VONA in primary open thyroidectomy. Τhen, primary studies were extracted from their reference lists. We developed a typology for surgical technique applied in primary studies and a framework approach for the evaluation of this typology by the meta-analyses and reviews.

RESULTS

Twelve meta-analyses, one review (388,252 nerves at risk), and 84 primary studies (128,720 patients) were included. Five meta-analyses considered the absence of typology regarding the surgical technique as a source of intervention bias; 48 primary studies (57.14%) provided information about at least one item of the typology components and only 1 for all of them.

DISCUSSION

Surgical technique of thyroidectomy in terms of a typology is underreported in studies and undervalued by meta-analyses comparing VONA to IONM. This missing typology should be reconsidered in the comparative evaluation of these two strategies.

Further considerations for placebo controls in surgical trials

The use of invasive placebo controls in surgical trials can be challenging. The ASPIRE guidance, published in the Lancet in 2020, provided advice for the design and conduct of surgical trials with an invasive placebo control. Based on a more recent international expert workshop in June 2022, we now provide further insights into this topic. These include the purpose and design of invasive placebo controls, patient information provision and how findings from these trials may be used to inform decision-making.

Endoscopic sinusectomy: 'a rose by any other name'. A systematic review of different endoscopic procedures to treat pilonidal disease

AIM

Pilonidal sinus or Pilonidal Disease (PD) is a relatively common, benign but challenging condition. Although commonly encountered in practice, its ideal treatment is controversial. One of the most validated treatments is video-assisted surgery. In this context, very similar endoscopic techniques have been published under different names. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the differences among these proposed techniques and their outcomes.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed during all stages of this systematic review. A systematic search of the English literature was performed on multiple databases from 1 January 2014 to 3 April 2022. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measures were the adherence to the IDEAL reporting guidelines, the Blencowe framework and the core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques, the qualitative assessment using appropriate tools, the procedural variations and outcomes of each technique.

RESULTS

A total of 38 articles were included reporting a very similar technique under eight different acronyms. The number of patients varied from 9 to 250. Mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 60 months. There was only one published study of IDEAL 3. The majority (58%) were IDEAL 2a studies. Reporting of domains in the IDEAL reporting guidelines and Blencowe framework was poor, with most studies not reporting the component steps of procedures or efforts to standardize them. Half of COS domains were markedly underreported. The quality of the evidence was categorized as having a risk of bias from moderate to critical level in all nine comparative non-randomized series. Postoperative complications occurred in 0%-6% of cases, including surgical site infection, poor or failed wound healing bleeding, granuloma, haematoma, and pain requiring intervention. The recurrence rate varied from 0% to 22%.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that reporting on technical aspects of interventions for PD is poor, thus warranting a better-quality control of surgical techniques. It is advisable to group all endoscopic procedures under the umbrella term of 'endoscopic sinusectomy', thus embracing the two main principles of this technique, that is, video assistance and PD ablation.

Using Evidence-Based Medicine to Support Clinical Decision-Making in RMS

The foundations of evidence-based practice are the triad of patient values and preferences, healthcare professional experience, and best available evidence, used together to inform clinical decision-making. Within the field of rhabdomyosarcoma, collaborative groups such as the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group (EpSSG) have worked to develop evidence to support this process. We have explored many of the key research developments within this review, including patient and public involvement, decision-making research, research into areas other than drug development, core outcome sets, reporting and dissemination of research, evidence synthesis, guideline development and clinical decision rules, research of research methodologies, and supporting research in RMS.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised surgical trials: a review of existing guidance

BACKGROUND

The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials.

METHODS

A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed.

What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design: a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation.

DESIGN

(1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study.

SETTING

Two secondary care surgical centres in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study.

RESULTS

59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN17573805.

Reaching a Tipping Point for Neurorehabilitation Research: Obstacles and Opportunities in Trial Design, Description, and Pooled Analysis

The record-breaking pace of COVID-19 vaccine development and implementation depended heavily on collaboration among academic, government, and commercial stakeholders, especially through data-sharing and robust multicenter trials. Collaborative efforts have not been as fruitful in fields such as neurorehabilitation, where non-pharmacological interventions play a much larger role. Barriers to translating scientific advancements into clinical practice in neurorehabilitation include pervasively small study sizes, exacerbated by limited funding for non-pharmacological multicenter clinical trials; difficulty standardizing—and adequately describing—non-pharmacological interventions; and a lack of incentives for individual patient-level data-sharing. These barriers prevent reliable meta-analysis of non-pharmacological clinical studies in neurorehabilitation. This point-of-view will highlight these challenges as well as suggest practical steps that may be taken to improve the neurorehabilitation pipeline between evidence and implementation.

Measurement challenges and causes of incomplete results reporting of biomedical animal studies: Results from an interview study

Background

Existing evidence indicates that a significant amount of biomedical research involving animals remains unpublished. At the same time, we lack standards for measuring the extent of results reporting in animal research. Publication rates may vary significantly depending on the level of measurement such as an entire animal study, individual experiments within a study, or the number of animals used.

Methods

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and qualitative content analysis, we investigated challenges and opportunities for the measurement of incomplete reporting of biomedical animal research with specific reference to the German situation. We further investigate causes of incomplete reporting.

Results

The in-depth expert interviews revealed several reasons for why incomplete reporting in animal research is difficult to measure at all levels under the current circumstances. While precise quantification based on regulatory approval documentation is feasible at the level of entire studies, measuring incomplete reporting at the more individual experiment and animal levels presents formidable challenges. Expert-interviews further identified six drivers of incomplete reporting of results in animal research. Four of these are well documented in other fields of research: a lack of incentives to report non-positive results, pressures to ‘deliver’ positive results, perceptions that some data do not add value, and commercial pressures. The fifth driver, reputational concerns, appears to be far more salient in animal research than in human clinical trials. The final driver, socio-political pressures, may be unique to the field.

Discussion

Stakeholders in animal research should collaborate to develop a clear conceptualisation of complete reporting in animal research, facilitate valid measurements of the phenomenon, and develop incentives and rewards to overcome the causes for incomplete reporting.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.

A defense of surgical procedures regulation

Since the advent of drug regulation in 1962, regulatory agencies have been in the practice of using strict standards to test the safety and efficacy of medical treatments and products. Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, demand two full-fledged Randomized Clinical Trials demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of drugs to grant its marketing authorization. On the contrary, surgical treatments are left completely unregulated. There are several reasons explaining this difference, and all of them point to the difficulty of conducting well-designed RCTs in surgery. However, we argue that none of these arguments is decisive and that, under certain conditions, surgical RCTs can be morally justified and methodologically sound. Although ethical constraints restrict the number of testable surgical procedures, and surgical trials might not be as dependable as pharmaceutical RCTs, our analysis suggests that, in certain cases, it is possible to obtain high-quality evidence about the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures. Untested surgical treatments may prove to be ineffective and harm patients. Therefore, regulation of surgical procedures seems not only morally acceptable and able to provide reliable scientific evidence, but also desirable and justified from an ethical-political standpoint.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Neurological update: consult the neurosurgical oracle for a standard operating procedure

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) contain general instructions and principles to standardize care, to improve effective and safe healthcare. Developing new, or updating current, SOPs is, however, challenging in fields where high-level evidence is limited. Still, SOPs alone have been shown to result in less complications. In this narrative review, we describe the process of creating a consensus-based SOP that is pragmatic for clinical practice since it can be created regardless of the current level of evidence. Through live audience engagement platforms, a group of experts will be able to both anonymously respond to a created questionnaire, and (subsequently) discuss the results within the same meeting. This modified Digital Delphi method as described here can be used as a tool toward consensus-based healthcare.

The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review

Background

At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions.

Methods

We conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings.

Results

We included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3).

Conclusions

In conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines.

Registration

PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6.

Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence.

METHODS

Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory.

RESULTS

Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

Pylorus resection versus pylorus preservation in pancreatoduodenectomy (PyloResPres): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a German multicentre, single-blind, surgical, registry-based randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for various benign and malignant tumours of the pancreatic head or the periampullary region. For reconstruction of the gastrointestinal passage, two stomach-preserving PD variants exist: pylorus preservation PD (ppPD) or pylorus resection PD (prPD) with preservation of the stomach. In pancreatic surgery, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains a serious complication after PD with an incidence varying between 4.5% and 45%, potentially delaying hospital discharge or further treatment, for example, adjuvant chemotherapy. Evidence is lacking to assess, which variant of PD entails fewer postoperative DGE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol of a large-scale, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, registry-based randomised controlled trial (rRCT) using a two-stage group-sequential design is presented. This patient-blind rRCT aims to demonstrate the superiority of prPD over ppPD with respect to the overall incidence of DGE within 30 days after index surgery in a German real-world setting. A total of 984 adults undergoing elective PD for any indication will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited at about 30 hospitals being members of the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry established by the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery. The postoperative follow-up for each patient will be 30 days. The primary analysis will follow an intention-to-treat approach and applies a binary logistic random intercepts model. Secondary perioperative outcomes include overall severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification), blood loss, 30-day all-cause mortality, postoperative hospital stay and operation time. Complication rates and adverse events will be closely monitored.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich (reference number 19-221). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (http://www.dgav.de/studoq/pylorespres/).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS-ID: DRKS00018842.

Systematic review of the introduction, early phase study and evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In 2002 a pyrocarbon interphalangeal joint implant was granted Food and Drug Administration approval with limited evidence of effectiveness. It is important to understand device use and outcomes since this implant entered clinical practice in order to establish incremental evidence, appropriate study design and reporting. This systematic review summarised and appraised studies reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception to November 2020. All study designs reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in humans were included. Data extracted included information about study characteristics, patient selection, regulatory (gaining research ethics approval) and governance issues (reporting of conflicting interests), operator and centre experience, technique description and outcome reporting. Descriptive and narrative summaries were reported.

RESULTS

From 4316 abstracts, 210 full-text articles were screened. A total of 38 studies and 1434 (1-184) patients were included. These consisted of three case reports, 24 case series, 10 retrospective cohort studies and one randomised trial. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated in 25 (66%) studies. Most studies (n = 27, 71%) gained research ethics approval to be conducted. Six studies reported conflicting interests. Experience of operating surgeons was reported in nine (24%) and caseload volume in five studies. There was no consensus about the optimal surgical approach. Technical aspects of implant placement were reported frequently (n = 32) but the detail provided varied widely. Studies reported multiple, heterogenous outcomes. The most commonly reported outcome was range of motion (n = 37).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified inconsistencies in how studies describing the early use and update of an innovative procedure were reported. Incremental evidence was lacking, risking the implant being adopted without robust evaluation. This review adds to evidence highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation of how implantable medical devices are used in practice following licencing.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.

DESIGN

To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.

SETTING

A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.

RESULTS

To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Systematic review on reporting of components and outcomes in randomized clinical trials of paraoesophageal hernia mesh repair

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions, such as paraoesophageal hernia (POH) repair, are complex with multiple components that require consideration in the reporting of clinical trials. Many aspects of POH repair, including mesh hiatal reinforcement and fundoplication type, are contentious. This review summarizes the reporting of components and outcomes in RCTs of POH repair.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified RCTs of POH repair published from 1995 to 2020. The patient selection criteria for RCT involvement were noted. The components of the surgical interventions in these RCTs were recorded using the CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments, Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Blencowe frameworks. The outcomes were summarized and definitions sought for critical variables, including recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 1918 abstracts and 21 screened full-text articles, 12 full papers reporting on six RCTs were included in the review. The patient selection criteria and definitions of POH between trials varied considerably. Although some description of trial interventions was provided in all RCTs, this varied in depth and detail. Four RCTs described efforts to standardize the trial intervention. Outcomes were reported inconsistently, were rarely defined fully, and overall trial conclusions varied during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This lack of detail on the surgical intervention in POH repair RCTs prevents full understanding of what exact procedure was evaluated and how it should be delivered in clinical practice to gain the desired treatment effects. Improved focus on the definitions, descriptions and reporting of surgical interventions in POH repair is required for better future RCTs.

Exploring the reporting standards of RCTs involving invasive procedures for assisted vaginal birth: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a complex intervention involving medical devices, comprising multiple components. This complexity creates difficulties when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in terms of describing, standardising and monitoring the intervention, and accounting for differing clinician expertise. This review examines the reporting standards of complex interventions involving a medical device, in the context of AVB RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN

Searches were undertaken from the start of indexing to March 2021, and limited to RCTs, feasibility and pilot studies including at least one device for AVB. RCTs were selected if they included participants having an AVB with any device, with or without a comparator group. Reporting details were assessed according to the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT), focusing on intervention descriptions, standardization, adherence and clinician expertise. Screening of abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 4098 abstracts and 83 full-text articles, 39 papers were included, investigating 80 interventions. Twenty-seven different named devices were identified. Intervention descriptions were provided in 20 (55%) papers with varying levels of detail and with only one covering the entire procedure. Standardization of interventions was mentioned in 25 papers (64%). Only eight (21%) papers reported any form of adherence to the intended procedure. Some data regarding expertise were reported in 25 (64%) papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some compliance with reporting standards, there is a lack of detail regarding intervention description, standardization, adherence and expertise in RCTs of AVB. This creates difficulties in understanding how intervention delivery was intended and what actually occurred. Clearer guidelines for the reporting of invasive procedures and devices are required.

Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery

Background

Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach.

Purpose

This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis.

Conclusions

For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Trans-thoracic Liver Resection to Examine Intervention Description, Governance, and Outcome Reporting of an Innovative Technique

INTRODUCTION

The number of laparoscopic liver resections undertaken has increased. However, lesions located postero-superiorly are difficult to access. This may be overcome by the novel use of trans-thoracic port(s). Methods for the safe and transparent introduction of new and modified surgical procedures are limited and a summary of these issues, for minimally invasive trans-thoracic liver resections (MITTLR), is lacking. This study aims to understand and summarize technique description, governance procedures, and reporting of outcomes for MITTLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search to identify primary studies of all designs describing MITTLR was undertaken. How patients were selected for the new technique was examined. The technical components of MITTLR were identified and summarized to understand technique development over time. Governance arrangements (eg, Institutional Review Board approval) and steps taken to mitigate harm were recorded. Finally, specific outcomes reported across studies were documented.

RESULTS

Of 2067 screened articles, 16 were included reporting data from 145 patients and 6 countries. Selection criteria for patients was explicitly stated in 2 papers. No studies fully described the technique. Five papers reported ethical approval and 3 gave details of patient consent. No study reported on steps taken to mitigate harm.Technical outcomes were commonly reported, for example, blood loss (15/16 studies), operative time (15/16), and margin status (11/16). Information on patient-reported outcomes and costs were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Technical details and governance procedures were poorly described. Outcomes focussed on short term details alone. Transparency is needed for reporting the introduction of new surgical techniques to allow their safe dissemination.

Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the most reliable procedure for lymph node staging. However, the therapeutic benefit remains unproven; although most radical prostatectomies at academic centers are accompanied by PLND, there is no consensus regarding the optimal anatomical extent of PLND.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether extended PLND results in a lower biochemical recurrence rate.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a single-center randomized trial. Patients, enrolled between October 2011 and March 2017, were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and PLND. Patients were assigned to limited or extended PLND by cluster randomization. Specifically, surgeons were randomized to perform limited or extended PLND for 3-mo periods.

INTERVENTION

Randomization to limited (external iliac nodes) or extended (external iliac, obturator fossa and hypogastric nodes) PLND.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was the rate of biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 1440 patients included in the final analysis, 700 were randomized to limited PLND and 740 to extended PLND. The median number of nodes retrieved was 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-17) for limited PLND and 14 (IQR 10-20) extended PLND; the corresponding rate of positive nodes was 12% and 14% (difference -1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.4% to 1.5%; p = 0.3). With median follow-up of 3.1 yr, there was no significant difference in the rate of biochemical recurrence between the groups (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.15; p = 0.5). Rates for grade 2 and 3 complications were similar at 7.3% for limited versus 6.4% for extended PLND; there were no grade 4 or 5 complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended PLND did not improve freedom from biochemical recurrence over limited PLND for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. However, there were smaller than expected differences in nodal count and the rate of positive nodes between the two templates. A randomized trial comparing PLND to no node dissection is warranted.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this clinical trial we did not find a difference in the rate of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer between limited and extended dissection of lymph nodes in the pelvis. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01407263.

A systematic review of the quality of reporting of interventions in the surgical treatment of Crohn's anal fistula: an assessment using the TIDiER and Blencowe frameworks

BACKGROUND

Crohn's anal fistula is a challenging condition, and may require multiple surgical procedures. To replicate successful procedures, these must be adequately reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to review the quality of reporting of components of surgical interventions for Crohn's anal fistula.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. It was registered with PROSPERO (CRD:42019135157). The Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting interventions intended to close fistula in patients with Crohn's disease, published between 1999 and August 2019. Abstracts and full texts were screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Dual extraction of data was performed to compare reporting to the TIDiER and Blencowe frameworks for reporting of interventions.

RESULTS

Initial searches identified 207 unique studies; 38 full texts were screened for inclusion and 33 were included. The most common study design was retrospective cohort (17/33), and the most frequently reported interventions were anal fistula plug (n = 8) and fibrin glue (n = 6). No studies showed coverage of all domains of TIDieR. Reporting was poor among domains related to who provided an intervention, where it was provided, and how it was tailored. Reporting of domains in the Blencowe framework was poor; the majority of studies did not report the component steps of procedures or efforts to standardise them.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that reporting on technical aspects of interventions for Crohn's anal fistula is poor. Surgeons should aim to improve reporting to allow accurate reproduction of techniques both in clinical practice and in clinical trials.

Evaluation of the completeness of intervention reporting in Cochrane surgical systematic reviews using the TIDieR-SR checklist: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Complete reporting of systematic reviews of interventions is essential to the interpretation of research findings and the reproducibility of research results. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist-and the version specific to systematic reviews (TIDieR-SR)-was created to provide authors and researchers an evidence-based guide for reporting trial and systematic review interventions. In this study, we apply TIDieR-SR to Cochrane systematic reviews of surgical interventions.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database for relevant systematic reviews. Two investigators applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to all titles/abstracts and full texts. These same investigators extracted all data in duplicate while masked to the other's data. The primary outcome was adherence to TIDieR-SR items.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-eight systematic reviews were included. Overall, included SRs adhered to a median of 6 (IQR 5-7) out of eight TIDieR-SR items. The item with the lowest adherence was item 7 (share intervention materials, 1/238 (0.4%).

DISCUSSION

Our results are encouraging, but the generalisability of our findings is compromised by the inclusion of only Cochrane systematic reviews. Future reporting of intervention materials is likely to improve the application of effective surgical interventions in the clinical practice.

Systematic Review of Innovation Reporting in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endoscopic procedure used to treat obesity-related comorbidities. Whilst its use is increasing in clinical practice, there is comparatively little understanding about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of ESG in the context of guidelines for evaluating innovative surgical devices and procedures.

METHODS

Systematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting ESG insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, proceduralist expertise, technique description and outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2289 abstracts; 37 full-text papers were included (one prospective comparative cohort study, 16 retrospective cohort studies, 17 prospective cohort studies and three case reports). No randomized trials were identified. Eighteen studies were conducted prospectively. The number of patients in the included studies ranged from 1 to 1000. The lower BMI limit ranged from 27 to 35 kg/m². Research approvals were reported in 26 studies. Two studies reported on the learning curve. All studies reported some aspect of technical implementation, but many variations were noted. Suturing device used and suture pattern were the most commonly reported aspects (32 studies). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 24 months, but was 12 months or less in 28 studies. Forty-eight different outcomes were reported across all studies.

CONCLUSION

The literature on ESG has demonstrated some progression in reporting and analysis and the next stage of assessment should be a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate efficacy.

Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018.

METHODS

The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6.

RESULTS

The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908.

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. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Compared with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical specialties, RCTs in cardiac surgery face specific issues. Individual and collective equipoise, rapid evolution of the surgical techniques, as well as difficulties in obtaining funding, and limited education in clinical epidemiology in the surgical community are among the most important challenges in the design phase of the trial. Use of complex interventions and learning curve effect, differences in individual operators' expertise, difficulties in blinding, and slow recruitment make the successful completion of cardiac surgery RCTs particularly challenging. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, the number of cardiac surgery RCTs has declined significantly. In this review, a team of surgeons, trialists, and epidemiologists discusses the most important challenges faced by RCTs in cardiac surgery and provides a list of suggestions for the successful design and completion of cardiac surgery RCTs.

A systematic review and in-depth analysis of outcome reporting in early phase studies of colorectal cancer surgical innovation

AIM

Early phase studies are essential to evaluate new technologies prior to randomized evaluation. Evaluation is limited, however, by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This study examines outcome reporting in studies of innovative colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified studies of invasive procedures treating primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Included were a random sample of studies which authors reported as 'new' or 'modified'. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorized using an existing framework of 32 domains relevant to early phase studies. Outcomes were classified as 'measured' (where there was an explicit statement to that effect or evidence that data collection had occurred) or 'mentioned but not measured' (where outcomes were discussed but data collection was not evident). Patterns of identified outcomes are described.

RESULTS

Of 8373 records, 816 were potentially eligible. Full-text review of a random sample of 218 studies identified 51 for inclusion of which 34 (66%) were 'new' and 17 (33%) were 'modified'. Some 2073 outcomes were identified, and all mapped to domains. 'Anticipated disadvantages' were most frequently identified [660 (32%) outcomes identified across 50 (98%) studies]. No domain was represented in all studies. Under half (944, 46%) of outcomes were 'measured'. 'Surgeon's/operator's experience of the innovation' was more frequently 'mentioned but not measured' [207 (18%) outcomes across 46 (90%) studies] than 'measured' [17 (2%) outcomes, 11 (22%) studies].

CONCLUSION

There is outcome reporting heterogeneity in studies of early phase colorectal cancer surgery. The adoption of core outcome sets may help to resolve these inconsistencies and enable efficient evaluation of surgical innovations.

Routinely collected data and patient-centred research in anaesthesia and peri-operative care: a narrative review

Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard in clinical research, but remain rare due to their expense and a perceived lack of 'real-world' applicability. At the same time, there has been an exponential increase in routinely collected data which presents opportunities for audit, quality improvement, adverse event reporting and more efficient clinical research. Registry-based research benefits from reduced cost, large sample size and real-world applicability, with methodological developments, particularly registry-based randomised controlled trials and causal inference techniques, showing promise. Limitations include data quality and validity, the need for data linkage, the restrictions of fixed data fields, regulatory barriers, and privacy and security concerns. However, the principal factor hampering current efforts is a lack of anaesthesia-specific datasets in the UK and the fact that most surgical registries do not collect any anaesthetic data. This presents an opportunity for anaesthetists, through enhanced engagement and collaboration, to influence and improve the design of these datasets and increase the value and volume of data collected. Better datasets, coupled with a growing appreciation of new analysis methodologies, would allow significant progress towards realising the potential of routinely collected data for patient benefit. At the same time, work should begin on the development of a minimum dataset for anaesthesia to underpin new data sharing networks and, ideally, a national registry of anaesthesia.

A systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials

Interventions from randomised controlled trials can only be replicated if they are reported in sufficient detail. The results of trials can only be confidently interpreted if the delivery of the intervention was systematic and the protocol adhered to. We systematically reviewed trials of anaesthetic interventions published in 12 journals from January 2016 to September 2019. We assessed the detail with which interventions were reported, using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non‐pharmacological treatments. We analysed 162 interventions reported by 78 trials in 18,675 participants. Detail sufficiently precise to replicate the intervention was reported for 111 (69%) interventions. Intervention standardisation was reported for 135 (83%) out of the 162 interventions, and protocol adherence was reported for 20 (12%) interventions. Sixty (77%) out of the 78 trials reported the administrative context in which interventions were delivered and 36 (46%) trials detailed the expertise of the practitioners. We conclude that bespoke reporting tools should be developed for anaesthetic interventions and interventions in other areas such as critical care.

Exploring mechanisms of action in clinical trials of complex surgical interventions using mediation analysis

Background:

Surgical interventions allow for tailoring of treatment to individual patients and implementation may vary with surgeon and healthcare provider. In addition, in clinical trials assessing two competing surgical interventions, the treatments may be accompanied by co-interventions.

Aims:

This study explores the use of causal mediation analysis to (1) delineate the treatment effect that results directly from the surgical intervention under study and the indirect effect acting through a co-intervention and (2) to evaluate the benefit of the surgical intervention if either everybody in the trial population received the co-intervention or nobody received it.

Methods:

Within a counterfactual framework, relevant direct and indirect effects of a surgical intervention are estimated and adjusted for confounding via parametric regression models, for the situation where both mediator and outcome are binary, with baseline stratification factors included as fixed effects and surgeons as random intercepts. The causal difference in probability of a successful outcome (estimand of interest) is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation with bootstrapping for confidence intervals. Packages for estimation within standard statistical software are reviewed briefly. A step by step application of methods is illustrated using the Amaze randomised trial of ablation as an adjunct to cardiac surgery in patients with irregular heart rhythm, with a co-intervention (removal of the left atrial appendage) administered to a subset of participants at the surgeon’s discretion. The primary outcome was return to normal heart rhythm at one year post surgery.

Results:

In Amaze, 17% (95% confidence interval: 6%, 28%) more patients in the active arm had a successful outcome, but there was a large difference between active and control arms in the proportion of patients who received the co-intervention (55% and 30%, respectively). Causal mediation analysis suggested that around 1% of the treatment effect was attributable to the co-intervention (16% natural direct effect). The controlled direct effect ranged from 18% (6%, 30%) if the co-intervention were mandated, to 14% (2%, 25%) if it were prohibited. Including age as a moderator of the mediation effects showed that the natural direct effect of ablation appeared to decrease with age.

Conclusions:

Causal mediation analysis is a useful quantitative tool to explore mediating effects of co-interventions in surgical trials. In Amaze, investigators could be reassured that the effect of the active treatment, not explainable by differential use of the co-intervention, was significant across analyses.

Radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints: guidelines for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial

Background and aim:

The RADICAL trial has been funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation (RFD) for low back pain. Recommendations have been published which aim to standardise selection of patients and RFD technique. However, it is important to ensure these recommendations are acceptable to clinicians within the context of the trial. The aim of this work was to develop standardised criteria for the trial entry and RFD technique for implementation within the RADICAL trial.

Methods:

Fourteen pain clinicians completed a survey, which involved reviewing the current recommendations and indicating whether they disagreed with any of the recommendations and if so why. Responses were collated and presented at a half-day workshop with 14 attendees. During the workshop, the National Low Back and Radicular Pain Pathway (NLBRPP) guidelines for patient selection and an article by Eldabe and colleagues presenting recommendations on the RFD technique were reviewed. Attendees discussed whether each component of the recommendations should be mandatory, mandatory with alteration or clarification or optional within the RADICAL trial.

Results:

Attendees agreed during the workshop that 5 of the 10 criteria for patient selection described in the NLBRPP should be mandatory within the RADICAL trial. Three were agreed as mandatory criteria but required further clarification, one of which involved defining a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block as ⩾60% pain relief. Two criteria had optional components. After reviewing the recommendations on the RFD technique from Eldabe and colleagues, seven components were agreed as mandatory, three were mandatory with alterations and three were optional.

Conclusion:

When evaluating complex interventions, such as RFD, it is important to ensure agreement and clarity on the clinical protocol, so that the intervention can be reproduced, if found to be effective.

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain.

CONCLUSION

Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

Recommendations for the Conduct and Reporting of Research Involving Flexible Electronic Health Record-Based Interventions

In the past 2 decades, the United States has seen widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and a transition from mostly locally developed EHRs to commercial systems. However, most research on quality improvement and safety interventions in EHRs is still conducted at a single site, in a single EHR. Although single-site studies are important early in the innovation lifecycle, multisite studies of EHR interventions are critical for generalizability. Because EHR software, configuration, and local context differ considerably across health care organizations, it can be difficult to implement a single, standardized intervention across multiple sites in a study. This article outlines key strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities for standardization of EHR interventions in multisite studies and describes flexible trial designs suitable for studying complex interventions, including EHR interventions. It also outlines key considerations for reporting on flexible trials of EHR interventions, including sharing details of the process for designing interventions and their content, details of outcomes being studied and approaches for pooling, and the importance of sharing code and configuration whenever possible.

Optimizing the design of invasive placebo interventions in randomized controlled trials

Background

Placebo‐controlled trials play an important role in the evaluation of healthcare interventions. However, they can be challenging to design and deliver for invasive interventions, including surgery. In‐depth understanding of the component parts of the treatment intervention is needed to ascertain what should, and should not, be delivered as part of the placebo. Assessment of risk to patients and strategies to ensure that the placebo effectively mimics the treatment are also required. To date, no guidance exists for the design of invasive placebo interventions. This study aimed to develop a framework to optimize the design and delivery of invasive placebo interventions in RCTs.

Methods

A preliminary framework was developed using published literature to: expand the scope of an existing typology, which facilitates the deconstruction of invasive interventions; and identify placebo optimization strategies. The framework was refined after consultation with key stakeholders in surgical trials, consensus methodology and medical ethics.

Results

The resulting DITTO framework consists of five stages: deconstruct treatment intervention into constituent components and co‐interventions; identify critical surgical element(s); take out the critical element(s); think risk, feasibility and role of placebo in the trial when considering remaining components; and optimize placebo to ensure effective blinding of patients and trial personnel.

Conclusion

DITTO considers invasive placebo composition systematically, accounting for risk, feasibility and placebo optimization. Use of the framework can support the design of high‐quality RCTs, which are needed to underpin delivery of healthcare interventions.

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines)

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons' experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.