1
|
External validation of the CholeS conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy (CLOC) risk score in Aotearoa New Zealand: a validation study. ANZ J Surg 2024; 94:1108-1113. [PMID: 38525949 DOI: 10.1111/ans.18921] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2023] [Revised: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/26/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open is uncommon, but is associated with longer hospital stay and recovery. Prognosticating conversion may aid service planning and provision. We therefore aimed to assess the external validity of the largest risk score for operative conversion. METHODS CHOLENZ was a multicentre, prospective, national cohort study of cholecystectomy for benign biliary disease conducted by STRATA, a trainee-led collaborative network. Data were collected from patients undergoing cholecystectomy in New Zealand hospitals between 1 August and 30 October 2021 with 30-day follow-up. The Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Cholecystectomy (CLOC) score from the CholeS study was assessed for external validity by interrogating its accuracy and calibration in the CHOLENZ dataset. RESULTS Of 1162 cholecystectomies started laparoscopically, 20 (1.7%) were converted to open in the CHOLENZ dataset. The CLOC score predicted 2.9% (IQR 1.3%-8.1%) would be converted. Area under the curve was 0.65 (95% 0.51-0.79) and calibration was acceptable with a Hosmer-Lemeshow p value of 0.45; with evidence of tendency to overestimate with interrogation of calibration across a continuous risk profile (intercept 1.27, slope 0.4). Sensitivity analysis with imputed data improved accuracy. Recalibration with the addition of body mass index, and preoperative bilirubin also improved accuracy to 0.86 (95% CI 0.78-0.95). CONCLUSIONS The CLOC score in its original form is not generalisable to the Aotearoa New Zealand setting and is therefore not suitable for clinical use in our local setting.
Collapse
|
2
|
Study Management Group, Varghese C, McGuinness M, Wells CI, Elliott BM, Gunawardene A, Edwards M, Expert Advisory Group, Vohra R, Griffiths EA, Connor S, Poole GH, Windsor JA, Wright D, Harmston C, Collaborating Authors, Wang JHS, Windsor J, Chen E, Ghate K, Lal S, Lekamalage B, Ratnayake M, Bansal A, Windsor J, von Keisenberg S, Hemachandran A, Singhal M, Joseph N, Bhat S, Rossaak J, Carson D, Dubey N, Pan M, Ferguson L, Watt I, Choi J, Mclauchlan J, Connor S, Nicholas E, Al-Busaidi I, Wood D, Haran C, Lin A, Fagan P, Bathgate A, Patel S, Mak J, Espiner E, Poole G, Hassan S, Javed Z, Randall M, Clough S, Cook W, Clark S, Finlayson C, Poole G, Bahl P, Singh S, Lin C, Wang C, Kittaka R, Morreau M, Ing A, Logan S, Guest S, Sutherland K, Lewis A, Roberts J, Watson B, Tietjens J, Teague R, Su'a B, Modi A, Modi V, Williams Y, Morreau J, Khoo C, Desmond B, Young M, Christmas R, Holm T, Harmston C, Long K, Garton B, Niki kau, Barber L, Amer M, Haddow J, Amer M, Fearnley-Fitzgerald C, Suresh K, Zeng E, Young-Gough A, Skeet J, El-Haddawi F, Alvarez M, Nguyen S, King J, Crichton J, Welsh F, Edwards M, Tan J, Luo J, Banker K, Field X, Allan P, Rennie S, Ratnayake CB, Srinivasa S, Gloria Kim JH, Bradley S, Singh N, Kang G, Xu W, Srinivasa S, Cook H, Mistry V, Dabla K, de Oca AM, Yoganandarajah V, Lill M, Lu J, Bonnet LA, Uiyapat T. Variation in the practice of cholecystectomy for benign biliary disease in Aotearoa New Zealand: a population-based cohort study. HPB (Oxford) 2023:S1365-182X(23)00128-4. [PMID: 37198069 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2022] [Revised: 03/26/2023] [Accepted: 04/18/2023] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cholecystectomy for benign biliary disease is common and its delivery should be standardised. However, the current practice of cholecystectomy in Aotearoa New Zealand is unknown. METHODS A prospective, national cohort study of consecutive patients having cholecystectomy for benign biliary disease was performed between August and October 2021 with 30-day follow-up, through STRATA, a student- and trainee-led collaborative. RESULTS Data were collected for 1171 patients from 16 centres. 651 (55.6%) had an acute operation at index admission, 304 (26.0%) had delayed cholecystectomy following a previous admission, and 216 (18.4%) had an elective operation with no preceding acute admissions. The median adjusted rate of index cholecystectomy (as a proportion of index and delayed cholecystectomy) was 71.9% (range 27.2%-87.3%). The median adjusted rate of elective cholecystectomy (as proportion of all cholecystectomies) was 20.8% (range 6.7%-35.4%). Variations across centres were significant (p < 0.001) and inadequately explained by patient, operative, or hospital-factors (index cholecystectomy model R2 = 25.8, elective cholecystectomy model R2 = 50.6). CONCLUSIONS Notable variation in the rates of index and elective cholecystectomy exists in Aotearoa New Zealand not attributable to patient, operative or hospital factors alone. National quality improvement efforts to standardise availability of cholecystectomy are needed.
Collapse
|
3
|
Tanase A, Russell TB, Platt T, Griffiths EA, Aroori S. The single-stage management of bile duct stones is underutilised: A prospective multicentre cohort study with a literature review. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2022; 26:333-338. [PMID: 35995582 PMCID: PMC9721244 DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.22-001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2022] [Revised: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims Bile duct stones (BDS) can be managed either prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or with laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) at the time of LC. The latter is underutilised. The aim of this study was to use the dataset of the previously performed CholeS study to investigate LBDE hospital volumes, LBDE-to-LC rates, and LBDE outcomes. Methods Data from 166 United Kingdom/Republic of Ireland hospitals were used to study the utilisation of LBDE in LC patients. Results Of 8,820 LCs performed, 932 patients (10.6%) underwent preoperative ERCP and 256 patients (2.9%) underwent LBDE. Of the 256 patients who underwent LBDE, 73 patients (28.5%) had undergone prior ERCP and 112 patients (43.8%) had undergone prior magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Fifteen (9.0%) of the 166 included hospitals performed less than five LBDEs in the two-month study period. LBDEs were mainly performed by upper gastrointestinal surgeons (84.4%) and colorectal surgeons (10.0%). Eighty-seven percent of the LBDEs were performed by consultants and 13.0% were performed by trainees. The laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 12.5%. The median operation time was 111 minutes (range: 75-155 minutes). Median hospital stay was 6 days (range: 4-11 days) for emergency LBDEs and 1 day (range: 1-4 days) for elective LBDEs. Overall morbidity was 21.5%. Bile leak rate was 5.3%. Thirty-day readmission and mortality rates were 12.1% and 0.4%, respectively. Conclusions The single-stage approach to managing BDS was underutilised. An additional prospective study with a longer study period is needed to verify this finding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrei Tanase
- Department of HPB Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Brendon Russell
- Department of HPB Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Timothy Platt
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, United Kingdom
| | | | - Somaiah Aroori
- Department of HPB Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, United Kingdom,Corresponding author: Somaiah Aroori, MS, MD, PgcMEd, EBSQ Department of HPB Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Derriford Road, Plymouth PL6 8DH, United Kingdom Tel: +44-7837388342, Fax: +44-8451555235, E-mail: ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5613-6463
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vannucci M, Laracca GG, Mercantini P, Perretta S, Padoy N, Dallemagne B, Mascagni P. Statistical models to preoperatively predict operative difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review. Surgery 2021; 171:1158-1167. [PMID: 34776259 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2021] [Revised: 10/01/2021] [Accepted: 10/03/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative difficulty is highly variable and influences outcomes. This systematic review analyzes the performance and clinical value of statistical models to preoperatively predict laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative difficulty. METHODS PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched until June 2020. Primary studies developing or validating preoperative models predicting laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative difficulty in cohorts of >100 patients were included. Studies not reporting performance metrics or enough information for clinical implementation were excluded. Data were extracted according to CHARMS, and study quality was assessed using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS In total, 2,654 articles were identified, and 22 met eligibility criteria. Eighteen were model development, whereas 4 were validation studies. Eighteen studies were at high risk of bias. However, 11 studies showed low concern for applicability. Identified models predict 9 definitions of laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative difficulty, the most common being conversion to open surgery and operating time. The most validated models predict an intraoperative difficulty scale and procedures >90 minutes with an area under the curve of >0.70 and >0.76, respectively. Commonly used predictors include demographic variables such as age and gender (9/18 models) and ultrasound findings such as gallbladder wall thickness (11/18). Clinical implementation was never studied. CONCLUSION There is a longstanding interest in estimating laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative difficulty. Models to preoperatively predict laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative difficulty have generally good performance and seem applicable. However, an unambiguous definition of operative difficulty, validations, and clinical studies are needed to implement patients' stratification in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Vannucci
- University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; Institute for Research against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France
| | - Giovanni Guglielmo Laracca
- Institute for Research against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France; Department of Medical Surgical Science and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
| | - Paolo Mercantini
- Department of Medical Surgical Science and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
| | - Silvana Perretta
- Institute for Research against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France; Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Strasbourg, France; Department of Digestive and Endocrine Surgery, University of Strasbourg, France
| | - Nicolas Padoy
- Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Strasbourg, France; ICube, University of Strasbourg, CNRS, Illkirch, France
| | - Bernard Dallemagne
- Institute for Research against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France; Department of Digestive and Endocrine Surgery, University of Strasbourg, France
| | - Pietro Mascagni
- Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU), Strasbourg, France; Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Malik A, Seretis C. Use of percutaneous cholecystostomy for complicated acute lithiasic cholecystitis: solving or deferring the problem? POLISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY 2021; 93:7-12. [DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.4211] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
<b>Introduction:</b> Percutaneous cholecystostomies are not infrequently used as an adjunct in the treatment of severe lithiasic cholecystitis, particularly in unstable and comorbid patients. However, their out of proportion liberal use tends to substitute the performance of emergency cholecystectomy, which the definitive treatment. </br></br> <b>Aim:</b> Our aim was to assess the short and long-term outcomes of patients who had percutaneous cholecystostomy insertion due to severe lithiasic cholecystitis, aiming to define areas for improvement of our institutional practice. </br></br> <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Retrospective review of our institutional practice including all patients who had a percutaneous cholecystostomy for complex lithiasic cholecystitis, over a 5-year period, allowing for an additional 1-year follow up. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> A total of 34 patients were included in our final analysis. Percutaneous cholecystostomy insertion enabled quick and efficient control of the source of biliary sepsis without major procedural complications in all cases. In 14 (41.2%) patients, cholecystostomy alone served as definitive treatment, while in 20 (58.9%) cases it was used as bridging strategy for delayed elective cholecystectomy. In the delayed cholecystectomy group of patients, we noted a high conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery rate of 70%, with an overall subtotal cholecystectomy rate of 60%. </br></br> <b>Conclusion:</b> Percutaneous cholecystostomies should be reserved only for complex lithiasic cholecystitis patients who are unwilling and/or unfit for surgery. We advocate the performance of upfront emergency cholecystectomy in any other case with liberal use of operative bail-out strategies, as a delayed elective operation is anyway likely to be converted to open and/or subtotal cholecystectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adnan Malik
- Department of General Surgery, George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, United Kingdom
| | - Charalampos Seretis
- Department of General Surgery, George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jepson M, Lazaroo M, Pathak S, Blencowe N, Collingwood J, Clout M, Toogood G, Blazeby J. Making large-scale surgical trials possible: collaboration and the role of surgical trainees. Trials 2021; 22:567. [PMID: 34446065 PMCID: PMC8390009 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05536-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruitment to surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. The Sunflower study is a large-scale multi-centre RCT that seeks to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-operative imaging versus expectant management in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones. Trials such as Sunflower, with a large recruitment target, rely on teamworking. Recruitment can be optimised by embedding a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Additionally, engaging surgical trainees can contribute to successful recruitment, and the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) scheme provides a framework to acknowledge their contributions. METHODS This was a mixed-methods study that formed a component part of an embedded QRI for the Sunflower RCT. The aim of this study was to understand factors that supported and hindered the participation of surgical trainees in a large-scale RCT and their participation in the API scheme. It comprised semi-structured telephone interviews with consultant surgeons and surgical trainees involved in screening and recruitment of patients, and descriptive analysis of screening and recruitment data. Interviews were analysed thematically to explore the perspectives of-and roles undertaken by-surgical trainees. RESULTS Interviews were undertaken with 34 clinicians (17 consultant surgeons, 17 surgical trainees) from 22 UK hospital trusts. Surgical trainees contributed to patient screening, approaches and randomisation, with a major contribution to the randomisation of patients from acute admissions. They were often encouraged to participate in the study by their centre principal investigator, and career development was a typical motivating factor for their participation in the study. The study was registered with the API scheme, and a majority of the trainees interviewed (n = 14) were participating in the scheme. CONCLUSION Surgical trainees can contribute substantial activity to a large-scale multi-centre RCT. Benefits of trainee engagement were identified for trainees themselves, for local sites and for the study as a whole. The API scheme provided a formal framework to acknowledge engagement. Ensuring that training and support for trainees are provided by the trial team is key to optimise success for all stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcus Jepson
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603QuinteT Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
| | - Michelle Lazaroo
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK
| | - Samir Pathak
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
- grid.410421.20000 0004 0380 7336University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Trust Headquarters, Marlborough St, Bristol, BS1 3NU UK
| | - Jane Collingwood
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
| | - Madeleine Clout
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK
| | - Giles Toogood
- grid.443984.6Department of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF UK
| | - Jane Blazeby
- grid.5337.20000 0004 1936 7603NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Bristol, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fergusson J, Beenen E, Mosse C, Salim J, Cheah S, Wright T, Cerdeira MP, McQuillan P, Richardson M, Liem H, Spillane J, Yacob M, Albadawi F, Thorpe T, Dingle A, Cabalag C, Loi K, Fisher OM, Ward S, Read M, Johnson M, Bassari R, Bui H, Cecconello I, Sallum RAA, da Rocha JRM, Lopes LR, Tercioti V, Coelho JDS, Ferrer JAP, Buduhan G, Tan L, Srinathan S, Shea P, Yeung J, Allison F, Carroll P, Vargas-Barato F, Gonzalez F, Ortega J, Nino-Torres L, Beltrán-García TC, Castilla L, Pineda M, Bastidas A, Gómez-Mayorga J, Cortés N, Cetares C, Caceres S, Duarte S, Pazdro A, Snajdauf M, Faltova H, Sevcikova M, Mortensen PB, Katballe N, Ingemann T, Morten B, Kruhlikava I, Ainswort AP, Stilling NM, Eckardt J, Holm J, Thorsteinsson M, Siemsen M, Brandt B, Nega B, Teferra E, Tizazu A, Kauppila JS, Koivukangas V, Meriläinen S, Gruetzmann R, Krautz C, Weber G, Golcher H, Emons G, Azizian A, Ebeling M, Niebisch S, Kreuser N, Albanese G, Hesse J, Volovnik L, Boecher U, Reeh M, Triantafyllou S, Schizas D, Michalinos A, Mpali E, Mpoura M, Charalabopoulos A, Manatakis DK, Balalis D, Bolger J, Baban C, Mastrosimone A, McAnena O, Quinn A, Ó Súilleabháin CB, Hennessy MM, Ivanovski I, Khizer H, Ravi N, Donlon N, Cervellera M, Vaccari S, Bianchini S, Sartarelli L, Asti E, Bernardi D, Merigliano S, Provenzano L, Scarpa M, Saadeh L, Salmaso B, De Manzoni G, Giacopuzzi S, La Mendola R, De Pasqual CA, Tsubosa Y, Niihara M, Irino T, Makuuchi R, Ishii K, Mwachiro M, Fekadu A, Odera A, Mwachiro E, AlShehab D, Ahmed HA, Shebani AO, Elhadi A, Elnagar FA, Elnagar HF, Makkai-Popa ST, Wong LF, Yunrong T, Thanninalai S, Aik HC, Soon PW, Huei TJ, Basave HNL, Cortés-González R, Lagarde SM, van Lanschot JJB, Cords C, Jansen WA, Martijnse I, Matthijsen R, Bouwense S, Klarenbeek B, Verstegen M, van Workum F, Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, de Maat M, Evenett N, Johnston P, Patel R, MacCormick A, Young M, Smith B, Ekwunife C, Memon AH, Shaikh K, Wajid A, Khalil N, Haris M, Mirza ZU, Qudus SBA, Sarwar MZ, Shehzadi A, Raza A, Jhanzaib MH, Farmanali J, Zakir Z, Shakeel O, Nasir I, Khattak S, Baig M, Noor MA, Ahmed HH, Naeem A, Pinho AC, da Silva R, Matos H, Braga T, Monteiro C, Ramos P, Cabral F, Gomes MP, Martins PC, Correia AM, Videira JF, Ciuce C, Drasovean R, Apostu R, Ciuce C, Paitici S, Racu AE, Obleaga CV, Beuran M, Stoica B, Ciubotaru C, Negoita V, Cordos I, Birla RD, Predescu D, Hoara PA, Tomsa R, Shneider V, Agasiev M, Ganjara I, Gunjic´ D, Veselinovic´ M, Babič T, Chin TS, Shabbir A, Kim G, Crnjac A, Samo H, Díez del Val I, Leturio S, Díez del Val I, Leturio S, Ramón JM, Dal Cero M, Rifá S, Rico M, Pagan Pomar A, Martinez Corcoles JA, Rodicio Miravalles JL, Pais SA, Turienzo SA, Alvarez LS, Campos PV, Rendo AG, García SS, Santos EPG, Martínez ET, Fernández Díaz MJ, Magadán Álvarez C, Concepción Martín V, Díaz López C, Rosat Rodrigo A, Pérez Sánchez LE, Bailón Cuadrado M, Tinoco Carrasco C, Choolani Bhojwani E, Sánchez DP, Ahmed ME, Dzhendov T, Lindberg F, Rutegård M, Sundbom M, Mickael C, Colucci N, Schnider A, Er S, Kurnaz E, Turkyilmaz S, Turkyilmaz A, Yildirim R, Baki BE, Akkapulu N, Karahan O, Damburaci N, Hardwick R, Safranek P, Sujendran V, Bennett J, Afzal Z, Shrotri M, Chan B, Exarchou K, Gilbert T, Amalesh T, Mukherjee D, Mukherjee S, Wiggins TH, Kennedy R, McCain S, Harris A, Dobson G, Davies N, Wilson I, Mayo D, Bennett D, Young R, Manby P, Blencowe N, Schiller M, Byrne B, Mitton D, Wong V, Elshaer A, Cowen M, Menon V, Tan LC, McLaughlin E, Koshy R, Sharp C, Brewer H, Das N, Cox M, Al Khyatt W, Worku D, Iqbal R, Walls L, McGregor R, Fullarton G, Macdonald A, MacKay C, Craig C, Dwerryhouse S, Hornby S, Jaunoo S, Wadley M, Baker C, Saad M, Kelly M, Davies A, Di Maggio F, McKay S, Mistry P, Singhal R, Tucker O, Kapoulas S, Powell-Brett S, Davis P, Bromley G, Watson L, Verma R, Ward J, Shetty V, Ball C, Pursnani K, Sarela A, Sue Ling H, Mehta S, Hayden J, To N, Palser T, Hunter D, Supramaniam K, Butt Z, Ahmed A, Kumar S, Chaudry A, Moussa O, Kordzadeh A, Lorenzi B, Willem J, Bouras G, Evans R, Singh M, Warrilow H, Ahmad A, Tewari N, Yanni F, Couch J, Theophilidou E, Reilly JJ, Singh P, van Boxel G, Akbari K, Zanotti D, Sgromo B, Sanders G, Wheatley T, Ariyarathenam A, Reece-Smith A, Humphreys L, Choh C, Carter N, Knight B, Pucher P, Athanasiou A, Mohamed I, Tan B, Abdulrahman M, Vickers J, Akhtar K, Chaparala R, Brown R, Alasmar MMA, Ackroyd R, Patel K, Tamhankar A, Wyman A, Walker R, Grace B, Abbassi N, Slim N, Ioannidi L, Blackshaw G, Havard T, Escofet X, Powell A, Owera A, Rashid F, Jambulingam P, Padickakudi J, Ben-Younes H, Mccormack K, Makey IA, Karush MK, Seder CW, Liptay MJ, Chmielewski G, Rosato EL, Berger AC, Zheng R, Okolo E, Singh A, Scott CD, Weyant MJ, Mitchell JD. Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). BJS Open 2021; 5:zrab010. [PMID: 35179183 PMCID: PMC8140199 DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2020] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). METHODS The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013). CONCLUSION Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pilonidal sinus is a hole in the natal cleft which may cause severe pain and become infected. The evidence base for management of pilonidal sinus is said to be poor quality, poorly focused and rapidly proliferating. We undertook a systematic mapping review to provide a broad overview of the field and support the identification of research priorities. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to 22nd Nov 2020 for primary research studies focused on the management of pilonidal sinus. We extracted data on study design and categorised studies under five major headings ('non-surgical treatment', 'surgical treatment', 'aftercare' and 'other'), producing frequency counts for different study designs. Gaps in research were identified from published systematic reviews and tabulated. RESULTS We identified 983 eligible studies, of which 36 were systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses; 121 were randomised controlled trials), and 826 observational studies of various design. The majority of studies evaluated surgical techniques (n = 665), or adjuvant medical interventions (n = 98). The literature on wound care has developed most recently, and the evidence base includes 30% randomised controlled trials. Gaps analysis highlighted comparison of surgical techniques including flaps, laser depilation, and wound care interventions as potential areas for randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS This mapping review summarises eight decades of research on the management of pilonidal sinus. Further research is needed to identify front-running interventions, understand variation in practice and patient values, and to prioritise future research.
Collapse
|
9
|
Predicting the difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy: development and validation of a pre-operative risk score using an objective operative difficulty grading system. Surg Endosc 2020; 34:4549-4561. [PMID: 31732855 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07244-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 10/28/2019] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prediction of a difficult cholecystectomy has traditionally been based on certain pre-operative clinical and imaging factors. Most of the previous literature reported small patient cohorts and have not used an objective measure of operative difficulty. The aim of this study was to develop a pre-operative score to predict difficult cholecystectomy, as defined by a validated intra-operative difficulty grading scale. METHOD Two cohorts from prospectively maintained databases of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were analysed: the CholeS Study (8755 patients) and a single surgeon series (4089 patients). Factors potentially predictive of difficulty were correlated to the Nassar intra-operative difficulty scale. A multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was then used to identify factors that were independently associated with difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy, defined as operative difficulty grades 3 to 5. The resulting model was then converted to a risk score, and validated on both internal and external datasets. RESULT Increasing age and ASA classification, male gender, diagnosis of CBD stone or cholecystitis, thick-walled gallbladders, CBD dilation, use of pre-operative ERCP and non-elective operations were found to be significant independent predictors of difficult cases. A risk score based on these factors returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.789 (95% CI 0.773-0.806, p < 0.001) on external validation, with 11.0% versus 80.0% of patients classified as low versus high risk having difficult surgeries. CONCLUSION We have developed and validated a pre-operative scoring system that uses easily available pre-operative variables to predict difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This scoring system should assist in patient selection for day case surgery, optimising pre-operative surgical planning (e.g. allocation of the procedure to a suitably trained surgeon) and counselling patients during the consent process. The score could also be used to risk adjust outcomes in future research.
Collapse
|
10
|
Potter S, Trickey A, Rattay T, O'Connell RL, Dave R, Baker E, Whisker L, Skillman J, Gardiner MD, Macmillan RD, Holcombe C. Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Br J Surg 2020; 107:832-844. [PMID: 32073654 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2019] [Revised: 10/14/2019] [Accepted: 11/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. METHODS The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Potter
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.,Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - A Trickey
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - T Rattay
- Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
| | | | - R Dave
- Nightingale Breast Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - E Baker
- Department of Breast Surgery, Airedale General Hospital, Keighley, UK
| | - L Whisker
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - J Skillman
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - M D Gardiner
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK.,Department of Plastic Surgery, Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Slough, UK
| | - R D Macmillan
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - C Holcombe
- Linda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Irwin G, Bannon F, Coles C, Copson E, Cutress R, Dave R, Grayson M, Holcombe C, Irshad S, O'Brien C, O'Connell R, Palmieri C, Shaaban A, Sharma N, Singh J, Whitehead I, Potter S, McIntosh S. The NeST (neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer) study - Protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to assess the current utilization and short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant systemic therapies in breast cancer. Int J Surg Protoc 2019; 18:5-11. [PMID: 31897446 PMCID: PMC6921204 DOI: 10.1016/j.isjp.2019.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2019] [Revised: 10/17/2019] [Accepted: 10/19/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) has several potential advantages in the treatment of breast cancer. However, there is currently considerable variation in NST use across the UK. The NeST study is a national, prospective, multicentre cohort study that will investigate current patterns of care with respect to NST in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Phase 1 - a national practice questionnaire (NPQ) to survey current practice.Phase 2 - a multi-centre prospective cohort study of breast cancer patients, undergoing NST.Women undergoing NST as their MDT recommended primary breast cancer treatment between December 2017 and May 2018 will be included. The breast surgery and oncological professional associations and the trainee research collaborative networks will encourage participation by all breast cancer centres.Patient demographics, radiological, oncological, surgical and pathological data will be collected, including complications and the need for further intervention/treatment. Data will be collated to establish current practice in the UK, regarding NST usage and variability of access and provision of these therapies. Prospective data on 600 patients from ~50 centres are anticipated.Trial registration: ISRCTN11160072. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Research ethics approval is not required for this study, as per the online Health Research Authority decision tool. The information obtained will provide valuable insights to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment. These data should establish current practice in the UK concerning NST, inform future service delivery as well as identifying further research questions.This protocol will be disseminated through the Mammary Fold Academic Research Collaborative (MFAC), the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network and the Association of Breast Surgery. Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals, as well as being made accessible to relevant patient groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G.W. Irwin
- Belfast City Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, 51 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT98 7AB, UK
| | - F. Bannon
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK
| | - C.E. Coles
- Oncology Centre, Box 193, University of Cambridge, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - E. Copson
- Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - R.I. Cutress
- Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - R.V. Dave
- Nightingale Breast Centre, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
| | - M. Grayson
- Northern Ireland Cancer Research Consumer Forum, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - C. Holcombe
- North West Cancer Research Centre, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool L3 9TA, UK
| | - S. Irshad
- Research Oncology, Kings College London, SE1 9RT, UK
- Guys & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - C. O'Brien
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 2BX, UK
| | - R.L. O'Connell
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, UK
| | - C. Palmieri
- Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK
| | - A.M. Shaaban
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2GW, UK
| | - N. Sharma
- Breast Unit, Level 1 Chancellor Wing, St James Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds LS97TF, UK
| | - J. Singh
- University Hospitals Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2GW, UK
| | - I. Whitehead
- Burney Breast Unit, St Helens & Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Marshalls Cross Road, St Helens WA9 3DA, UK
| | - S. Potter
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
- Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Road, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
| | - S.A. McIntosh
- Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7AE, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Multicentre prospective observational study evaluating recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams. Br J Surg 2019; 107:227-237. [PMID: 31691270 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2019] [Revised: 09/05/2019] [Accepted: 09/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) may contribute to variation in mastectomy rates. The primary aim of this multicentre prospective observational study was to describe current practice in MDT decision-making for recommending mastectomy. A secondary aim was to determine factors contributing to variation in mastectomy rates. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy between 1 June 2015 and 29 February 2016 at participating units across the UK were recruited. Details of neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST), operative and oncological data, and rationale for recommending mastectomy by MDTs were collected. RESULTS Overall, 1776 women with breast cancer underwent 1823 mastectomies at 68 units. Mastectomy was advised by MDTs for 1402 (76·9 per cent) of these lesions. The most common reasons for advising mastectomy were large tumour to breast size ratio (530 women, 29·1 per cent) and multicentric disease (372, 20·4 per cent). In total, 202 postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) unifocal tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 173 women (85·6 per cent). Seventy-five women aged less than 70 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 45 women (60 per cent). CONCLUSION Most mastectomies are advised for large tumour to breast size ratio, but there is an inconsistency in the use of NST to downsize tumours in patients with large ER+ or HER2+ cancers. The application of standardized recommendations for NST could reduce the number of mastectomies advised by MDTs.
Collapse
|
13
|
Gong M, Wu Z, Xu S, Guan X, Li H, Wang X, Zhang H. Protocol for creation of a risk scoring system for acute type A aortic dissection surgery. Int J Surg Protoc 2019; 14:19-23. [PMID: 31851754 PMCID: PMC6913569 DOI: 10.1016/j.isjp.2019.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2019] [Revised: 02/16/2019] [Accepted: 02/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Included variables include more comprehensive preoperative findings. The protocol is designed based on largest single center AD database in China. This risk scoring system will be verified using internal and external data.
Stanford type A aortic dissection is a kind of cardiovascular disease which seriously threatens human life and health. It has the characteristics of rapid onset, rapid progress and high mortality. Surgical treatment is a recognized treatment for type A aortic dissection. There are many disputed places in the actual clinical work about the timing, prognosis and methods of the operation. This study aims to establish an early mortality risk scoring system for acute Stanford A aortic dissection surgery patients. Methods and analysis The structured data of patients with acute type A aortic dissection were collected. The primary outcome is death during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes will include re-operation and related complications. A risk scoring system of patients with acute type A aortic dissection undergoing surgical treatment will be established. Prospective data will be used to validate the risk stratification ability and accuracy of the model in operative risk prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ming Gong
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
| | - Zining Wu
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
| | - Shijun Xu
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
| | - Xinliang Guan
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
| | - Haiyang Li
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
| | - Xiaolong Wang
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
| | - Hongjia Zhang
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Aortic Disease Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
- Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Beijing Engineering Research Center of Vascular Prostheses, Beijing 100069, China
- Corresponding author at: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 2 Anzhen Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:110-121. [PMID: 29956029 PMCID: PMC6336748 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6281-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2017] [Accepted: 06/18/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise description of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. METHODS Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall's tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere-Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. RESULTS A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respectively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty.
Collapse
|
15
|
O'Connell RL, Baker E, Trickey A, Rattay T, Whisker L, Macmillan RD, Potter S. Current practice and short-term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study. Br J Surg 2018; 105:1778-1792. [PMID: 30132807 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10959] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2018] [Revised: 04/12/2018] [Accepted: 06/21/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Therapeutic mammaplasty, which combines breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, may extend the boundaries of breast-conserving surgery and improve outcomes for patients, but current practice is unknown and high-quality outcome data are lacking. This prospective multicentre cohort study aimed to explore the practice and short-term outcomes of the technique. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty at participating centres between 1 September 2016 and 30 June 2017 were recruited to the study. Demographic, preoperative, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation for complications within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included re-excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS Overall, 880 patients underwent 899 therapeutic mammaplasty procedures at 50 centres. The most common indications were avoidance of poor cosmetic outcomes associated with standard breast-conserving surgery (702 procedures, 78·1 per cent) or avoidance of mastectomy (379, 42·2 per cent). Wise-pattern skin incisions were the most common (429 of 899, 47·7 per cent), but a range of incisions and nipple-areola pedicles were used. Immediate contralateral symmetrization was performed in one-third of cases (284 of 880, 32·3 per cent). In total, 205 patients (23·3 per cent) developed a complication, but only 25 (2·8 per cent) required reoperation. Median postoperative lesion size was 24·5 (i.q.r. 16-38) mm. Incomplete excision was seen in 132 procedures (14·7 per cent), but completion mastectomy was required for only 51 lesions (5·7 per cent). Median time to adjuvant therapy was 54 (i.q.r. 42-66) days. CONCLUSION Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy or standard breast-conserving surgery. Further work is required to explore the impact of the technique on quality of life, and to establish cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R L O'Connell
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - E Baker
- Department of Breast Surgery, Airedale General Hospital, Keighley, UK
| | - A Trickey
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - T Rattay
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - L Whisker
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - R D Macmillan
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - S Potter
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.,Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2018; 32:3149-3157. [PMID: 29340820 PMCID: PMC5988776 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6030-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2017] [Accepted: 01/03/2018] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. METHODS Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. RESULTS After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45-85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p < 0.001), with the proportions of operations lasting > 90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. CONCLUSION The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care.
Collapse
|
17
|
Vohra RS, Hodson J, Pasquali S, Griffiths EA. Effectiveness of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Non-emergency Cholecystectomy Using Data from a Population-Based Cohort Study. World J Surg 2017; 41:2231-2239. [PMID: 28444464 PMCID: PMC5544819 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-4018-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a variation in the administration of antibiotics prophylaxis to reduce the perceived risk of SSI in patients undergoing non-emergency cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis following non-emergency cholecystectomy to prevent 30-day superficial surgical site infections (SSIs) using non-selected, nationally collected, prospective data. METHODS Data were extracted from the CholeS study, which examined and independently validated the outcomes on consecutive patients following non-emergency cholecystectomy across 166 hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis were exact matched to those who did not on variables associated with antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary outcome of interest was superficial SSI, and secondary outcomes included deep SSI, readmissions, complications and re-interventions within 30 days. RESULTS Out of a total of 7327 patients included in the study, 4468 (61%) received antibiotic prophylaxis. These were matched to patients who did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis on a range of demographic and surgical factors, leaving 1269 pairs of patients for analysis. Within this cohort, patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis had significantly lower rates of superficial SSI (0.7% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.001) and all-cause complications (5.8 vs. 8.0%, p = 0.031), but similar rates of deep SSI (1.0 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.473), readmissions (5.2 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.302) and re-interventions (2.6 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.093). The number needed to treat to prevent one superficial SSI was 45 (95% confidence interval 24-662). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics appear effective at reducing SSI after non-emergency cholecystectomy. However, due to the high number needed to treat it is unclear whether they provide a worthwhile clinical benefit to patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ravinder S Vohra
- Nottingham Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK
| | - James Hodson
- Institute of Translational Medicine (ITM), University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2G, UK
| | - Sandro Pasquali
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2GW, UK.
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Macano C, Griffiths EA, Vohra RS. Current practice of antibiotic prophylaxis during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2017; 99:216-217. [PMID: 28071948 PMCID: PMC5450289 DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2017.0001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/28/2016] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Current guidelines do not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Despite this, there is wide variation in antibiotic prophylaxis during cholecystectomy in population-based studies. The aim of this survey was to establish the current rationale for antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS A short questionnaire was designed and disseminated across collaborators for a population-based study investigating outcomes following cholecystectomy and via the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Researchgate and Surginet membership. RESULTS Responses were received from 234 people; 50.9% had no written policy for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in elective cholecystectomy; 5.6% never used antibiotics, while 30.8% always did and 63.7% selectively used antibiotics. Contamination with bile, stones and pus were scenarios in which antibiotics were most commonly used in selective practices to reduce infective complications. Interestingly, 87% of respondents would be happy to participate in a trial investigating the effectiveness of antibiotics in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy where contamination has occurred. CONCLUSIONS The disparity between current practice and guidelines appears to arise because of a lack of evidence to show that antibiotics reduce surgical site infection following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy where contamination has occurred. This question needs to addressed before practice will change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caw Macano
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent , Staffordshire , UK
| | - E A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals, Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust , Birmingham , UK
| | - R S Vohra
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, University of Birmingham , Birmingham , UK
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals , Nottingham , UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Sutcliffe RP, Hollyman M, Hodson J, Bonney G, Vohra RS, Griffiths EA. Preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a validated risk score derived from a prospective U.K. database of 8820 patients. HPB (Oxford) 2016; 18:922-928. [PMID: 27591176 PMCID: PMC5094477 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.07.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2016] [Revised: 07/25/2016] [Accepted: 07/28/2016] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is commonly performed, and several factors increase the risk of open conversion, prolonging operating time and hospital stay. Preoperative stratification would improve consent, scheduling and identify appropriate training cases. The aim of this study was to develop a validated risk score for conversion for use in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS Preoperative patient and disease-related variables were identified from a prospective cholecystectomy database (CholeS) of 8820 patients, divided into main and validation sets. Preoperative predictors of conversion were identified by multivariable binary logistic regression. A risk score was developed and validated using a forward stepwise approach. RESULTS Some 297 procedures (3.4%) were converted. The risk score was derived from six significant predictors: age (p = 0.005), sex (p < 0.001), indication for surgery (p < 0.001), ASA (p < 0.001), thick-walled gallbladder (p = 0.040) and CBD diameter (p = 0.004). Testing the score on the validation set yielded an AUROC = 0.766 (p < 0.001), and a score >6 identified patients at high risk of conversion (7.1% vs. 1.2%). CONCLUSION This validated risk score allows preoperative identification of patients at six-fold increased risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert P Sutcliffe
- Liver Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Marianne Hollyman
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, Birmingham University, UK
| | - James Hodson
- Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Glenn Bonney
- Liver Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ravi S Vohra
- Nottingham Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Sutton AJ, Vohra RS, Hollyman M, Marriott PJ, Buja A, Alderson D, Pasquali S, Griffiths EA. Cost-effectiveness of emergency versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder pathology. Br J Surg 2016; 104:98-107. [PMID: 27762448 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2016] [Revised: 07/29/2016] [Accepted: 08/15/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal timing of cholecystectomy for patients admitted with acute gallbladder pathology is unclear. Some studies have shown that emergency cholecystectomy during the index admission can reduce length of hospital stay with similar rates of conversion to open surgery, complications and mortality compared with a 'delayed' operation following discharge. Others have reported that cholecystectomy during the index acute admission results in higher morbidity, extended length of stay and increased costs. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of emergency versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute benign gallbladder disease. METHODS Using data from a prospective population-based cohort study examining the outcomes of cholecystectomy in the UK and Ireland, a model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, with a 1-year time horizon for costs and outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results obtained from the model. RESULTS Emergency cholecystectomy was found to be less costly (£4570 versus £4720; €5484 versus €5664) and more effective (0·8868 versus 0·8662 QALYs) than delayed cholecystectomy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the emergency strategy is more than 60 per cent likely to be cost-effective across willingness-to-pay values for the QALY from £0 to £100 000 (€0-120 000). CONCLUSION Emergency cholecystectomy is less costly and more effective than delayed cholecystectomy. This approach is likely to be beneficial to patients in terms of improved health outcomes and to the healthcare provider owing to the reduced costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A J Sutton
- Health Economics Unit, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - R S Vohra
- Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - M Hollyman
- West Midlands Surgical Research Collaborative, Birmingham, UK
| | - P J Marriott
- West Midlands Surgical Research Collaborative, Birmingham, UK.,Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - A Buja
- Laboratory of Public Health and Population Studies, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua
| | - D Alderson
- Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - S Pasquali
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - E A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Vohra RS, Pasquali S, Kirkham AJ, Marriott P, Johnstone M, Spreadborough P, Alderson D, Griffiths EA, Fenwick S, Elmasry M, Nunes Q, Kennedy D, Basit Khan R, Khan MAS, Magee CJ, Jones SM, Mason D, Parappally CP, Mathur P, Saunders M, Jamel S, Ul Haque S, Zafar S, Shiwani MH, Samuel N, Dar F, Jackson A, Lovett B, Dindyal S, Winter H, Fletcher T, Rahman S, Wheatley K, Nieto T, Ayaani S, Youssef H, Nijjar RS, Watkin H, Naumann D, Emeshi S, Sarmah PB, Lee K, Joji N, Heath J, Teasdale RL, Weerasinghe C, Needham PJ, Welbourn H, Forster L, Finch D, Blazeby JM, Robb W, McNair AGK, Hrycaiczuk A, Charalabopoulos A, Kadirkamanathan S, Tang CB, Jayanthi NVG, Noor N, Dobbins B, Cockbain AJ, Nilsen-Nunn A, Siqueira J, Pellen M, Cowley JB, Ho WM, Miu V, White TJ, Hodgkins KA, Kinghorn A, Tutton MG, Al-Abed YA, Menzies D, Ahmad A, Reed J, Khan S, Monk D, Vitone LJ, Murtaza G, Joel A, Brennan S, Shier D, Zhang C, Yoganathan T, Robinson SJ, McCallum IJD, Jones MJ, Elsayed M, Tuck L, Wayman J, Carney K, Aroori S, Hosie KB, Kimble A, Bunting DM, Fawole AS, Basheer M, Dave RV, Sarveswaran J, Jones E, Kendal C, Tilston MP, Gough M, Wallace T, Singh S, Downing J, Mockford KA, Issa E, Shah N, Chauhan N, Wilson TR, Forouzanfar A, Wild JRL, Nofal E, Bunnell C, Madbak K, Rao STV, Devoto L, Siddiqi N, Khawaja Z, Hewes JC, Gould L, Chambers A, Urriza Rodriguez D, Sen G, Robinson S, Carney K, Bartlett F, Rae DM, Stevenson TEJ, Sarvananthan K, Dwerryhouse SJ, Higgs SM, Old OJ, Hardy TJ, Shah R, Hornby ST, Keogh K, Frank L, Al-Akash M, Upchurch EA, Frame RJ, Hughes M, Jelley C, Weaver S, Roy S, Sillo TO, Galanopoulos G, Cuming T, Cunha P, Tayeh S, Kaptanis S, Heshaishi M, Eisawi A, Abayomi M, Ngu WS, Fleming K, Singh Bajwa D, Chitre V, Aryal K, Ferris P, Silva M, Lammy S, Mohamed S, Khawaja A, Hussain A, Ghazanfar MA, Bellini MI, Ebdewi H, Elshaer M, Gravante G, Drake B, Ogedegbe A, Mukherjee D, Arhi C, Giwa Nusrat Iqbal L, Watson NF, Kumar Aggarwal S, Orchard P, Villatoro E, Willson PD, Wa K, Mok J, Woodman T, Deguara J, Garcea G, Babu BI, Dennison AR, Malde D, Lloyd D, Satheesan S, Al-Taan O, Boddy A, Slavin JP, Jones RP, Ballance L, Gerakopoulos S, Jambulingam P, Mansour S, Sakai N, Acharya V, Sadat MM, Karim L, Larkin D, Amin K, Khan A, Law J, Jamdar S, Smith SR, Sampat K, M O'shea K, Manu M, Asprou FM, Malik NS, Chang J, Johnstone M, Lewis M, Roberts GP, Karavadra B, Photi E, Hewes J, Gould L, Chambers A, Rodriguez D, O'Reilly DA, Rate AJ, Sekhar H, Henderson LT, Starmer BZ, Coe PO, Tolofari S, Barrie J, Bashir G, Sloane J, Madanipour S, Halkias C, Trevatt AEJ, Borowski DW, Hornsby J, Courtney MJ, Virupaksha S, Seymour K, Robinson S, Hawkins H, Bawa S, Gallagher PV, Reid A, Wood P, Finch JG, Parmar J, Stirland E, Gardner-Thorpe J, Al-Muhktar A, Peterson M, Majeed A, Bajwa FM, Martin J, Choy A, Tsang A, Pore N, Andrew DR, Al-Khyatt W, Taylor C, Bhandari S, Chambers A, Subramanium D, Toh SKC, Carter NC, Mercer SJ, Knight B, Tate S, Pearce B, Wainwright D, Vijay V, Alagaratnam S, Sinha S, Khan S, El-Hasani SS, Hussain AA, Bhattacharya V, Kansal N, Fasih T, Jackson C, Siddiqui MN, Chishti IA, Fordham IJ, Siddiqui Z, Bausbacher H, Geogloma I, Gurung K, Tsavellas G, Basynat P, Kiran Shrestha A, Basu S, Chhabra Mohan Harilingam A, Rabie M, Akhtar M, Kumar P, Jafferbhoy SF, Hussain N, Raza S, Haque M, Alam I, Aseem R, Patel S, Asad M, Booth MI, Ball WR, Wood CPJ, Pinho-Gomes AC, Kausar A, Rami Obeidallah M, Varghase J, Lodhia J, Bradley D, Rengifo C, Lindsay D, Gopalswamy S, Finlay I, Wardle S, Bullen N, Iftikhar SY, Awan A, Ahmed J, Leeder P, Fusai G, Bond-Smith G, Psica A, Puri Y, Hou D, Noble F, Szentpali K, Broadhurst J, Date R, Hossack MR, Li Goh Y, Turner P, Shetty V, Riera M, Macano CAW, Sukha A, Preston SR, Hoban JR, Puntis DJ, Williams SV, Krysztopik R, Kynaston J, Batt J, Doe M, Goscimski A, Jones GH, Smith SR, Hall C, Carty N, Ahmed J, Panteleimonitis S, Gunasekera RT, Sheel ARG, Lennon H, Hindley C, Reddy M, Kenny R, Elkheir N, McGlone ER, Rajaganeshan R, Hancorn K, Hargreaves A, Prasad R, Longbotham DA, Vijayanand D, Wijetunga I, Ziprin P, Nicolay CR, Yeldham G, Read E, Gossage JA, Rolph RC, Ebied H, Phull M, Khan MA, Popplewell M, Kyriakidis D, Hussain A, Henley N, Packer JR, Derbyshire L, Porter J, Appleton S, Farouk M, Basra M, Jennings NA, Ali S, Kanakala V, Ali H, Lane R, Dickson-Lowe R, Zarsadias P, Mirza D, Puig S, Al Amari K, Vijayan D, Sutcliffe R, Marudanayagam R, Hamady Z, Prasad AR, Patel A, Durkin D, Kaur P, Bowen L, Byrne JP, Pearson KL, Delisle TG, Davies J, Tomlinson MA, Johnpulle MA, Slawinski C, Macdonald A, Nicholson J, Newton K, Mbuvi J, Farooq A, Sidhartha Mothe B, Zafrani Z, Brett D, Francombe J, Spreadborough P, Barnes J, Cheung M, Al-Bahrani AZ, Preziosi G, Urbonas T, Alberts J, Mallik M, Patel K, Segaran A, Doulias T, Sufi PA, Yao C, Pollock S, Manzelli A, Wajed S, Kourkulos M, Pezzuto R, Wadley M, Hamilton E, Jaunoo S, Padwick R, Sayegh M, Newton RC, Hebbar M, Farag SF, Spearman J, Hamdan MF, D'Costa C, Blane C, Giles M, Peter MB, Hirst NA, Hossain T, Pannu A, El-Dhuwaib Y, Morrison TEM, Taylor GW, Thompson RLE, McCune K, Loughlin P, Lawther R, Byrnes CK, Simpson DJ, Mawhinney A, Warren C, McKay D, McIlmunn C, Martin S, MacArtney M, Diamond T, Davey P, Jones C, Clements JM, Digney R, Chan WM, McCain S, Gull S, Janeczko A, Dorrian E, Harris A, Dawson S, Johnston D, McAree B, Ghareeb E, Thomas G, Connelly M, McKenzie S, Cieplucha K, Spence G, Campbell W, Hooks G, Bradley N, Hill ADK, Cassidy JT, Boland M, Burke P, Nally DM, Hill ADK, Khogali E, Shabo W, Iskandar E, McEntee GP, O'Neill MA, Peirce C, Lyons EM, O'Sullivan AW, Thakkar R, Carroll P, Ivanovski I, Balfe P, Lee M, Winter DC, Kelly ME, Hoti E, Maguire D, Karunakaran P, Geoghegan JG, Martin ST, McDermott F, Cross KS, Cooke F, Zeeshan S, Murphy JO, Mealy K, Mohan HM, Nedujchelyn Y, Fahad Ullah M, Ahmed I, Giovinazzo F, Milburn J, Prince S, Brooke E, Buchan J, Khalil AM, Vaughan EM, Ramage MI, Aldridge RC, Gibson S, Nicholson GA, Vass DG, Grant AJ, Holroyd DJ, Jones MA, Sutton CMLR, O'Dwyer P, Nilsson F, Weber B, Williamson TK, Lalla K, Bryant A, Carter CR, Forrest CR, Hunter DI, Nassar AH, Orizu MN, Knight K, Qandeel H, Suttie S, Belding R, McClarey A, Boyd AT, Guthrie GJK, Lim PJ, Luhmann A, Watson AJM, Richards CH, Nicol L, Madurska M, Harrison E, Boyce KM, Roebuck A, Ferguson G, Pati P, Wilson MSJ, Dalgaty F, Fothergill L, Driscoll PJ, Mozolowski KL, Banwell V, Bennett SP, Rogers PN, Skelly BL, Rutherford CL, Mirza AK, Lazim T, Lim HCC, Duke D, Ahmed T, Beasley WD, Wilkinson MD, Maharaj G, Malcolm C, Brown TH, Shingler GM, Mowbray N, Radwan R, Morcous P, Wood S, Kadhim A, Stewart DJ, Baker AL, Tanner N, Shenoy H, Hafiz S, Marchi JA, Singh-Ranger D, Hisham E, Ainley P, O'Neill S, Terrace J, Napetti S, Hopwood B, Rhys T, Downing J, Kanavati O, Coats M, Aleksandrov D, Kallaway C, Yahya S, Weber B, Templeton A, Trotter M, Lo C, Dhillon A, Heywood N, Aawsaj Y, Hamdan A, Reece-Bolton O, McGuigan A, Shahin Y, Ali A, Luther A, Nicholson JA, Rajendran I, Boal M, Ritchie J. Population-based cohort study of variation in the use of emergency cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1716-1726. [PMID: 27748962 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2016] [Revised: 06/21/2016] [Accepted: 07/06/2016] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The aims of this prospective population-based cohort study were to identify the patient and hospital characteristics associated with emergency cholecystectomy, and the influences of these in determining variations between hospitals.
Methods
Data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing cholecystectomy in acute UK and Irish hospitals between 1 March and 1 May 2014. Potential explanatory variables influencing the performance of emergency cholecystectomy were analysed by means of multilevel, multivariable logistic regression modelling using a two-level hierarchical structure with patients (level 1) nested within hospitals (level 2).
Results
Data were collected on 4744 cholecystectomies from 165 hospitals. Increasing age, lower ASA fitness grade, biliary colic, the need for further imaging (magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography), endoscopic interventions (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and admission to a non-biliary centre significantly reduced the likelihood of an emergency cholecystectomy being performed. The multilevel model was used to calculate the probability of receiving an emergency cholecystectomy for a woman aged 40 years or over with an ASA grade of I or II and a BMI of at least 25·0 kg/m2, who presented with acute cholecystitis with an ultrasound scan showing a thick-walled gallbladder and a normal common bile duct. The mean predicted probability of receiving an emergency cholecystectomy was 0·52 (95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·57). The predicted probabilities ranged from 0·02 to 0·95 across the 165 hospitals, demonstrating significant variation between hospitals.
Conclusion
Patients with similar characteristics presenting to different hospitals with acute gallbladder pathology do not receive comparable care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - R S Vohra
- Trent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - S Pasquali
- Surgical Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - A J Kirkham
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - P Marriott
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - M Johnstone
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - P Spreadborough
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - D Alderson
- Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - E A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - S Fenwick
- Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Elmasry
- Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Q Nunes
- Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Kennedy
- Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - D Mason
- Wirral University Teaching Hospital
| | | | | | | | - S Jamel
- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital
| | | | - S Zafar
- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital
| | | | - N Samuel
- Barnsley District General Hospital
| | - F Dar
- Barnsley District General Hospital
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - K Wheatley
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - T Nieto
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - S Ayaani
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - H Youssef
- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
| | | | - H Watkin
- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
| | - D Naumann
- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
| | - S Emeshi
- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
| | | | - K Lee
- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
| | - N Joji
- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
| | - J Heath
- Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - R L Teasdale
- Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - P J Needham
- Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - H Welbourn
- Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - L Forster
- Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Finch
- Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - W Robb
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - B Dobbins
- Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | - M Pellen
- Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust
| | | | - W-M Ho
- Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust
| | - V Miu
- Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust
| | - T J White
- Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K A Hodgkins
- Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Kinghorn
- Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M G Tutton
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Y A Al-Abed
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Menzies
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Ahmad
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Reed
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Khan
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Monk
- Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - L J Vitone
- Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - G Murtaza
- Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Joel
- Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - D Shier
- Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
| | - C Zhang
- Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | - M J Jones
- North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust
| | - M Elsayed
- North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust
| | - L Tuck
- North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust
| | - J Wayman
- North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust
| | - K Carney
- North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - M P Tilston
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Gough
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - T Wallace
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Singh
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Downing
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K A Mockford
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - E Issa
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - N Shah
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - N Chauhan
- Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
| | - T R Wilson
- Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Forouzanfar
- Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J R L Wild
- Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - E Nofal
- Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - C Bunnell
- Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K Madbak
- Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S T V Rao
- Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - L Devoto
- Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - N Siddiqi
- Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Z Khawaja
- Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - D M Rae
- Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - O J Old
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | - R Shah
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | - K Keogh
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - L Frank
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - M Al-Akash
- Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - R J Frame
- Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Hughes
- Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
| | - C Jelley
- Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - T Cuming
- Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust
| | - P Cunha
- Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust
| | - S Tayeh
- Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust
| | | | | | - A Eisawi
- Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - W S Ngu
- Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - V Chitre
- Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K Aryal
- Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Ferris
- Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - H Ebdewi
- Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Elshaer
- Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - G Gravante
- Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - B Drake
- Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Ogedegbe
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - D Mukherjee
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - C Arhi
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - K Wa
- Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Mok
- Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - T Woodman
- Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Deguara
- Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - G Garcea
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
| | - B I Babu
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
| | | | - D Malde
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
| | - D Lloyd
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
| | | | - O Al-Taan
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
| | - A Boddy
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
| | - J P Slavin
- Leighton Hospital, Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - R P Jones
- Leighton Hospital, Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - L Ballance
- Leighton Hospital, Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Gerakopoulos
- Leighton Hospital, Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Jambulingam
- Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Mansour
- Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - N Sakai
- Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - V Acharya
- Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M M Sadat
- Macclesfield District General Hospital
| | - L Karim
- Macclesfield District General Hospital
| | - D Larkin
- Macclesfield District General Hospital
| | - K Amin
- Macclesfield District General Hospital
| | - A Khan
- Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Law
- Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Jamdar
- Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S R Smith
- Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K Sampat
- Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - M Manu
- Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | - N S Malik
- Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - J Chang
- Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | - M Lewis
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - G P Roberts
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - B Karavadra
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - E Photi
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - J Hornsby
- North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - K Seymour
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Robinson
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
| | - H Hawkins
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Bawa
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - A Reid
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Wood
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J G Finch
- Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust
| | - J Parmar
- Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust
| | | | | | - A Al-Muhktar
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Peterson
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Majeed
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - A Choy
- Peterborough City Hospital
| | | | - N Pore
- United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | | | - C Taylor
- United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - S Tate
- Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | | | - V Vijay
- The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
| | | | - S Sinha
- The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
| | - S Khan
- The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
| | | | - A A Hussain
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - N Kansal
- Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust
| | - T Fasih
- Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust
| | - C Jackson
- Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - K Gurung
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust
| | - G Tsavellas
- East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Basynat
- East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - S Basu
- East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - M Rabie
- East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Akhtar
- East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Kumar
- Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - N Hussain
- Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Raza
- Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Haque
- Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust
| | - I Alam
- Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust
| | - R Aseem
- Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust
| | - S Patel
- Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust
| | - M Asad
- Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust
| | - M I Booth
- Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
| | - W R Ball
- Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - J Varghase
- Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Lodhia
- Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Bradley
- Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - C Rengifo
- Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Lindsay
- Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | - A Awan
- Royal Derby NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Ahmed
- Royal Derby NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Leeder
- Royal Derby NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - D Hou
- Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - F Noble
- Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - R Date
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M R Hossack
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Y Li Goh
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - P Turner
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - V Shetty
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | - S R Preston
- Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J R Hoban
- Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D J Puntis
- Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S V Williams
- Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - J Batt
- Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust
| | - M Doe
- Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | - C Hall
- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust
| | - N Carty
- Salisbury Hospital Foundation Trust
| | - J Ahmed
- Salisbury Hospital Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | - H Lennon
- Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust
| | - C Hindley
- Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust
| | - M Reddy
- St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
| | - R Kenny
- St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | - K Hancorn
- St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - A Hargreaves
- St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - P Ziprin
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
| | | | - G Yeldham
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
| | - E Read
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
| | | | | | | | | | - M A Khan
- Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - A Hussain
- Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - S Ali
- City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust
| | - V Kanakala
- City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust
| | - H Ali
- Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone NHS Trust
| | - R Lane
- Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone NHS Trust
| | | | | | - D Mirza
- University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S Puig
- University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K Al Amari
- University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
| | - D Vijayan
- University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
| | - R Sutcliffe
- University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | - Z Hamady
- University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
| | - A R Prasad
- University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
| | - A Patel
- University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
| | - D Durkin
- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust
| | - P Kaur
- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust
| | - L Bowen
- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust
| | - J P Byrne
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K L Pearson
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
| | - T G Delisle
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Davies
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | - A Macdonald
- University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Nicholson
- University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - K Newton
- University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - J Mbuvi
- University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Farooq
- Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | - Z Zafrani
- Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - D Brett
- Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Trust
| | | | | | - J Barnes
- South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Cheung
- South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - M Wadley
- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - E Hamilton
- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - S Jaunoo
- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - R Padwick
- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
| | - M Sayegh
- Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - R C Newton
- Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M Hebbar
- Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | - S F Farag
- Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | - C Blane
- Yeovil District Hospital NHS Trust
| | - M Giles
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M B Peter
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - N A Hirst
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - T Hossain
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - A Pannu
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | - G W Taylor
- York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - T Diamond
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - P Davey
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - C Jones
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - J M Clements
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - R Digney
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - W M Chan
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - S McCain
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - S Gull
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - A Janeczko
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - E Dorrian
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - A Harris
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - S Dawson
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - D Johnston
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | - B McAree
- Belfast City Hospital, Mater Infirmorum Hospital Belfast and Royal Victoria Hospital
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - P Burke
- University Hospital Limerick
| | | | - A D K Hill
- Louth County Hospital and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
| | - E Khogali
- Louth County Hospital and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
| | - W Shabo
- Louth County Hospital and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
| | - E Iskandar
- Louth County Hospital and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - P Balfe
- St Luke's General Hospital Kilkenny
| | - M Lee
- St Luke's General Hospital Kilkenny
| | - D C Winter
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - M E Kelly
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - E Hoti
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - D Maguire
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - P Karunakaran
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - J G Geoghegan
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - S T Martin
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | - F McDermott
- St Vincent's University and Private Hospitals, Dublin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - S Gibson
- Crosshouse Hospital, Ayrshire and Arran
| | | | - D G Vass
- Crosshouse Hospital, Ayrshire and Arran
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - H C C Lim
- Glangwili General and Prince Philip Hospital
| | - D Duke
- Glangwili General and Prince Philip Hospital
| | - T Ahmed
- Glangwili General and Prince Philip Hospital
| | - W D Beasley
- Glangwili General and Prince Philip Hospital
| | | | - G Maharaj
- Glangwili General and Prince Philip Hospital
| | - C Malcolm
- Glangwili General and Prince Philip Hospital
| | | | | | | | - R Radwan
- Morriston and Singleton Hospitals
| | | | - S Wood
- Princess of Wales Hospital
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Dave R, O'Connell R, Rattay T, Tolkien Z, Barnes N, Skillman J, Williamson P, Conroy E, Gardiner M, Harnett A, O'Brien C, Blazeby J, Potter S, Holcombe C. The iBRA-2 (immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy audit) study: protocol for a prospective national multicentre cohort study to evaluate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the delivery of adjuvant therapy. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e012678. [PMID: 27855106 PMCID: PMC5073644 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer requiring a mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay the delivery of adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term oncological outcomes. High-quality evidence, however, is lacking. iBRA-2 is a national prospective multicentre cohort study that aims to investigate the effect of IBR on the delivery of adjuvant therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Breast and plastic surgery centres in the UK performing mastectomy with or without (±) IBR will be invited to participate in the study through the trainee research collaborative network. All women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer between 1 July and 31 December 2016 will be included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data will be collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR will be compared to determine the impact that IBR has on the time of delivery of adjuvant therapy. Prospective data on 3000 patients from ∼50 centres are anticipated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Research ethics approval is not required for this study. This has been confirmed using the online Health Research Authority decision tool. This novel study will explore whether IBR impacts the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy. The study will provide valuable information to help patients and surgeons make more informed decisions about their surgical options. Dissemination of the study protocol will be via the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative (MFAC) and the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS). Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant surgical conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rajiv Dave
- Nightingale Breast Unit, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Rachel O'Connell
- Department of Breast Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - Tim Rattay
- Department of Cancer Studies, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Zoe Tolkien
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Barnes
- Department of Breast Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - Joanna Skillman
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Paula Williamson
- Department of Biostatistics, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Elizabeth Conroy
- Department of Biostatistics, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Matthew Gardiner
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - Jane Blazeby
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Shelley Potter
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Holcombe
- Linda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Baker E, Kim B, Rattay T, Williams K, Ives C, Remoundos D, Holcombe C, Gardiner MD, Jain A, Sutton R, Achuthan R, Turton P, Fairbrother P, Brock L, Aggarwal S, Basu N, Murphy J, Trickey A, Macmillan RD, Potter S. The TeaM ( Th er apeutic Mammaplasty) study: Protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to evaluate the practice and outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty. Int J Surg Protoc 2016; 1:3-10. [PMID: 31851757 PMCID: PMC6913574 DOI: 10.1016/j.isjp.2016.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2016] [Revised: 08/20/2016] [Accepted: 08/20/2016] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Multicentre prospective study involving breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Will produce valuable data regarding the practice and outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty. Will inform decision-making and lead to future definitive study. Will strengthen the collaborative network to facilitate the delivery of future projects. Will increase awareness of the techniques among trainees such that participation is educational.
Introduction Wide local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy is the standard of care for early breast cancer. For large tumours, however, mastectomy is frequently recommended as conventional breast-conserving techniques often result in poor cosmetic outcomes. Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may extend the boundaries of breast-conserving surgery by combining breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, preserving a natural breast shape and avoiding the need for mastectomy. The prevalence of this operative option among surgeons in the UK and its success rate are unknown. The TeaM study is a multicentre prospective study that aims to investigate the practice and outcomes of TM. Methods and analysis Breast centres performing TM will be invited to participate through the research collaborative network and the professional associations. All patients undergoing TM between September 2016 and March 2017 will be included. Demographic, operative, oncological and complication data within 30-days of surgery will be collected. The primary outcome will be unplanned re-operation for complications. Secondary outcomes will include unplanned readmission, re-excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy. Prospective data on 500 patients from 50 centres are anticipated. Exploratory analyses will identify predictors for complications and inform the design of a definitive study. Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval is not required for this study. This has been confirmed by the on-line Health Research Authority decision tool. This study will provide novel information regarding the practice and outcomes of TM in the UK. This will inform decision-making for patients and surgeons and inform future research. Dissemination of the study protocol will be via the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative, the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network and the professional associations, the Association of Breast Surgery and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Results will be presented at relevant surgical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth Baker
- Breast Unit, Bradford Teaching Hospitals, Duckworth Lane, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK
| | - Baek Kim
- Department of Breast Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK
| | - Tim Rattay
- Department of Cancer Studies, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Leicester, Leicester LE2 2LX, UK
| | - Kathryn Williams
- Nightingale Breast Unit, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
| | - Charlotte Ives
- Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, Newton Road, Torquay, Devon TQ2 7AA, UK
| | - Dennis Remoundos
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
| | - Chris Holcombe
- Linda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool L7 8XP, UK
| | - Matthew D Gardiner
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7HE, UK.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - Abhilash Jain
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7HE, UK.,Imperial College London NHS Trust, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - Richard Sutton
- Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath, Avon BA1 3NG, UK
| | - Rajgopal Achuthan
- Breast Unit, Bradford Teaching Hospitals, Duckworth Lane, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK
| | - Philip Turton
- Breast Unit, Bradford Teaching Hospitals, Duckworth Lane, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK
| | | | - Lisa Brock
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Shweta Aggarwal
- Whipps Cross University Hospital, Whipps Cross Road, Leytonstone, London E11 1NR, UK
| | - Naren Basu
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK
| | - John Murphy
- Nightingale Breast Unit, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
| | - Adam Trickey
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - R Douglas Macmillan
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Shelley Potter
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Population-based cohort study of outcomes following cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1704-1715. [PMID: 27561954 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2016] [Revised: 06/06/2016] [Accepted: 07/06/2016] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim was to describe the management of benign gallbladder disease and identify characteristics associated with all-cause 30-day readmissions and complications in a prospective population-based cohort. METHODS Data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing cholecystectomy in acute UK and Irish hospitals between 1 March and 1 May 2014. Potential explanatory variables influencing all-cause 30-day readmissions and complications were analysed by means of multilevel, multivariable logistic regression modelling using a two-level hierarchical structure with patients (level 1) nested within hospitals (level 2). RESULTS Data were collected on 8909 patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 167 hospitals. Some 1451 cholecystectomies (16·3 per cent) were performed as an emergency, 4165 (46·8 per cent) as elective operations, and 3293 patients (37·0 per cent) had had at least one previous emergency admission, but had surgery on a delayed basis. The readmission and complication rates at 30 days were 7·1 per cent (633 of 8909) and 10·8 per cent (962 of 8909) respectively. Both readmissions and complications were independently associated with increasing ASA fitness grade, duration of surgery, and increasing numbers of emergency admissions with gallbladder disease before cholecystectomy. No identifiable hospital characteristics were linked to readmissions and complications. CONCLUSION Readmissions and complications following cholecystectomy are common and associated with patient and disease characteristics.
Collapse
|
25
|
Patel K, Hadian F, Ali A, Broadley G, Evans K, Horder C, Johnstone M, Langlands F, Matthews J, Narayan P, Rallon P, Roberts C, Shah S, Vohra R. Postoperative pulmonary complications following major elective abdominal surgery: a cohort study. Perioper Med (Lond) 2016; 5:10. [PMID: 27222707 PMCID: PMC4877761 DOI: 10.1186/s13741-016-0037-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2016] [Accepted: 05/09/2016] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are an under-reported but major cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this prospective, contemporary, multicentre cohort study of unselected patients undergoing major elective abdominal surgery was to determine the incidence and effects of PPC. Methods Data on all major elective abdominal operations performed over a 2-week period in December 2014 were collected in six hospitals. The primary outcome measure of PPC at 7 days was used. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate how different factors were associated with PPC and the effects of such complications. Results Two hundred sixty-eight major elective abdominal operations were performed, and the internal validation showed that the data set was 99 % accurate. Thirty-two (11.9 %) PPC were reported at 7 days. PPC was more common in patients with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared to those with no history (26.7 vs. 10.2 %, p < 0.001). PPC was not associated with other patient factors (e.g. age, gender, body mass index or other comorbidities), type/method of operation or postoperative analgesia. The risk of PPC appeared to increase with every additional minute of operating time independent of other factors (odds ratio 1.01 (95 % confidence intervals 1.00–1.02), p = 0.007). PPC significantly increase the length of hospital stay (10 vs. 3 days). Attendance to the emergency department within 30 days (27.3 vs. 10.6 %), 30-day readmission (21.7 vs. 9.9 %) and 30-day mortality (12.5 vs. 0.0 %) was higher in those with PPC. Conclusions PPC are common and have profound effects on outcomes. Strategies need to be considered to reduce PPC. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13741-016-0037-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kamlesh Patel
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Fatemeh Hadian
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Aysha Ali
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Graham Broadley
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Kate Evans
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Claire Horder
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Marianne Johnstone
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Fiona Langlands
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Jake Matthews
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Prithish Narayan
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Priya Rallon
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Charlotte Roberts
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Sonali Shah
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK
| | - Ravinder Vohra
- West Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH UK ; Nottingham Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|