Association Of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons Research Articles

OGBN P39 Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic Anti-Reflux Surgery at a District General Hospital: Matching National Standards and Improving Patient Quality of Life

Abstract Background Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease (GORD) affects a substantial proportion of adults in the UK, with surgery offering superior short-to-medium term benefits compared to medical management alone. However, there is significant variation in surgical practice nationwide. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) at a District General Hospital (DGH) by aligning outcomes with the national standards set by AUGIS (Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons). Methods Prospective data from patients who underwent LARS between May 2022 and May 2023 were collected and recorded locally as well as on the National Hiatal Surgery Register (NHSR). Pre-operative symptoms and investigations, intraoperative findings, post-operative short and medium-term outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, administered by the NHSR, were collected at 6 months to 1 year post-surgery. AUGIS standards, including a minimum of 5 procedures per year by 2 surgeons, conversion rate below 5%, 30-day return to theatre below 5%, and 30-day readmission rate below 10%, were utilized for comparison. Results In one year, two surgeons performed 41 LARS procedures: 31 Nissen, 4 Toupet, and 2 Dor wraps, with 2 redo surgeries. Minor complications occurred in 3 patients, requiring no intervention. One surgery was converted to open due to bleeding, and hiatal repair performed. Wrap migration led to re-do after 10 months. The 30-day return to theatre rate was 0%, readmission rate 2% (n=1, unremarkable CT scan). One patient discharged as a day case, average stay 4 days. Out of 23 eligible patients, 15 completed post-op questionnaires, showing significant QoL improvement. Additionally, 55% no longer needed anti-reflux meds at 6-month follow-up. Conclusions We significantly increased the number of LARS procedures performed while meeting the national standards set by AUGIS and we observed a significant improvement in our patients' quality of life following surgery. Experienced laparoscopic Upper GI surgeons can safely and effectively offer anti-reflux surgery in a DGH setting. Our commitment to prospective data collection for audit and research purposes has been a major strength. Future objectives include further consolidation of our work and expanding the range of procedures, such as magnetic sphincter augmentation (LINX), to improve day-case rates.

EGS P12 To Perform Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography or Not in Gallstone Pancreatitis? – A Single Centre Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract Background The management of gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) is well-described in guidelines from the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS) and British Society of Gastroenterologists (BSG). Guidelines recommend laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for mild GSP within 2 weeks of the admission, with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as second-line for unfit patients. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) plays a pivotal role in excluding choledocholithiasis. Our aim was to determine if MRCP is required to rule out choledocholithiasis in patients with GSP. Methods A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive adult patients who had MRCP for GSP in a single centre from September 2020 to September 2022 was conducted. Patient demographics, pre-MRCP peak liver function test (LFT) values and MRCP findings were analysed. Patients were risk-stratified based on modified AUGIS guidelines using the presence of hyperbilirubinaemia and the presence of biliary duct dilation on other imaging modalities. Patients with MRCP-proven choledocholithiasis were compared to those without. P-values were calculated using Fisher’s exact test. This study was registered with Clinical Quality Project (LanQIP 14738). Results 138 patients were identified; median age was 61 years (IQR 45-73) and 95 (68.8%) were female. 20 (14.5%) patients were post-cholecystectomy. 115 (83.3%) had inpatient scans and 66 (47.8%) were urgent. Median waiting time for inpatient MRCPs was 1.1 days (IQR 0.8-1.9) and 22.9 days (IQR 13.4-28.0) for outpatient scans. 25 (78.1%) patients had raised alkaline phosphatase levels and 23 (71.9%) had hyperbilirubinaenia. 61.1% of abdominal ultrasounds and 38.5% of CT scans reported dilated bile ducts. MRCP yielded 32 patients (23.2%) with choledocholithiasis, 3 of whom were post-cholecystectomy. Choledocholithiasis on MRCP was strongly correlated to higher risk stratification. Conclusions MRCP is useful imaging modality determining the presence of choledocholithiasis in high and moderate risk patients with GSP. We recommend that intraoperative cholangiography should still be performed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy where expertise is available.

EGS P18 A Closed Loop Audit on the Management of Acute Cholecystitis During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Abstract Background The definitive management of acute cholecystitis is laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the same admission, if the patient is fit. However, as the Covid-19 pandemic emerged, evidence suggested adverse outcomes for asymptomatic Covid positive patients undergoing surgery, including increased mortality risk. Risks to theatre staff were also highlighted. This prompted changes in guidelines produced by the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS) in March 2020, which strongly supported the conservative non-surgical management of acute cholecystitis. Methods This closed loop audit aimed to establish whether patients with acute cholecystitis were managed in accordance with AUGIS guideline changes at our hospital. It also aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of the guideline changes. This retrospective audit focused on patient admissions with acute cholecystitis at our hospital during the 2 peaks of the Covid-19 pandemic. The timeframe of the initial audit was 17th April - 14th May 2020 (4 weeks). The timeframe of the re-audit was 1st - 28th February 2021 (4 weeks). Handover sheets and clinical software were the data sources. The initial audit was presented at the General Surgery departmental clinical governance meeting in September 2020 and formed the educational intervention. Results 24 patients with acute cholecystitis were included in the initial audit, and 25 patients in the re-audit. The initial audit found that 15 patients (62.5%) with acute cholecystitis were managed conservatively with IV antibiotics, 4 patients (16.6%) had a percutaneous cholecystostomy, and 5 patients (20.8%) underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy during their index admission. Following our educational intervention, the re-audit found that 22 patients (88%) were treated conservatively, 1 patient (4%) had a percutaneous cholecystostomy, and 2 patients (8%) underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The mean length of hospital stay reduced from 5.67 days in the initial audit, to 3.88 days in the re-audit. 30 day readmission rates also reduced from 5 patients (20.8%) to 0 patients (0%). 2 patients aged >60 years died from unrelated causes during their index admission. They had Charlson Comorbidity Index scores >2. Conclusions Management of acute cholecystitis was more compliant with AUGIS guidelines following the educational intervention. Importantly, overall, conservative non-surgical management did not clinically disadvantage patients, and was not associated with the development of complications of acute cholecystitis, such as gallbladder empyema or perforation. Indeed, the re-audit revealed shorter length of hospital stay and lower 30 day readmission rate than the initial audit. For vulnerable patients at risk of serious complications from contracting Covid-19, this certainly had positive implications for wellbeing, reducing exposure to the hospital environment. There were also further beneficial implications for limited bed resources. Our findings, however, suggest that flexibility is required in decision-making in the management of acute cholecystitis. In carefully selected patients, for example younger patients with fewer comorbidities, emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy might avoid future readmission with serious complications of gallstones, such as ascending cholangitis and pancreatitis. The evidence from our local audit suggests that AUGIS guideline changes may overall benefit and improve the clinical outcomes of patients with acute cholecystitis. However, decisions about management should be in the interests of, and tailored to, the individual patient.

A O05 MUlti-center cohort Study of Oesophageal Injuries and related Clinical outcomes (MUSOIC) study

Abstract Background Perforation of the oesophagus (OP) represent a potentially lethal yet poorly managed clinical condition due to its rarity, variation in clinical presentation and little consensus on the optimal management of these patients. Previous studies have shown that timely and appropriate treatment of OPs is the most important determinant of patient outcomes, and a delay in initiating the correct management within 24 hours increased the mortality rate from 10% to over 60%. Historically, patients have been managed based on the personal experience and preference of the surgeon, and accordingly most patients underwent surgical management based on data from small retrospective case series. Depending on the cause of injury, location of perforation and status of the patient, options include conservative management; endoscopy (stenting or clipping); and surgery (drainage, diversion, primary repair, or oesophagectomy). Currently, there are no recent large-scale studies investigating the outcomes in oesophageal perforation, leading to a paucity of high-grade evidence on the management of oesophageal injuries. This study aims to characterise the variation in the management of OPs, update its epidemiology in the UK; and evaluate the mortality and morbidity outcomes of surgical and non-surgical modalities in managing OP. Methods This was a multi-centred cohort study involving eligible centers from the Association of Upper Gastro-intestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) research network. All adult patients who were admitted with a diagnosis of esophageal perforation (iatrogenic, spontaneous or traumatic causes) and managed as an inpatient for more than 24 hours were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were as follows: pediatric population; OP due to anastomotic leaks post-esophagectomy; and unavailability of data matching primary outcome measures. The time period for inclusion of patients was from January 2016 to December 2020. Investigators were asked to actively monitor patients and their electronic medical records to identify post-intervention complications up to 90 days from time of intervention if appropriate. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Other secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications secondary to OP or interventions; incidence of 30-day re-intervention; length of hospital stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay; readmission within 30 days; and recurrence. Results During the study period 369 patients with oesophageal perforation from eight centres and were included in the study. The mean age of the population was 63 (18) years, body mass index was 25 (9)kg/m2, 60% were male, 30% were ASA grade 3, and 41% ECOG performance status 0. The aetiology of OP was spontaneous in 57% and iatrogenic in 37%. The mean time from presentation to referral and intervention were 37 hours and 111 hours respectively. In patients transferred from a district general to a tertiary hospital the mean time from presentation to transfer was 100 hours. Surgery was used as the primary treatment approach in 31%, endoscopic intervention in 10% and conservative management in 56%. Thoractomy and laparotomy was used in 20% and 24% respectively, endosponge and endoscopic stent used in 11% and 7% respectively. 90-day mortality was 20% across the cohort, 30-day re-admission rate was 18%, mean ICU stay, and LOS were 10 days and 37 days respectively. 90-day mortality was significantly reduced in the surgery group (9%) when compared with endoscopic (24%) and conservative management groups (28%) (p<0.001). Multivariate analyses identified key patient, procedural, and treatment factors associated with mortality from oesophageal perforation. Conclusions In a centralised oesophageal and gastric cancer service, the management of complex upper gastrointestinal conditions including oesophageal perforation is most commonly centralised to oesophageal and gastric cancer centres. This large multi-centre collaborative study provides robust data concerning modern practices of the management of oesophageal perforation in the UK. Through a detailed and highly granular dataset, we have examined factors associated with the patient pathway, presentation and treatment that are associated with mortality following oesophageal perforation.

EP-602 The impact of COVD-19 on the surgical management of acute cholecystitis

AimThe Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS) recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours of admission for acute cholecystitis. COVID-19 has drastically affected the way healthcare is able to be delivered worldwide. This project was designed to audit the impact of COVID-19 on the surgical management of acute cholecystitis against AUGIS guidelines.MethodsAll general surgical admission from November 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Admission records were screened for those presenting with acute cholecystitis. Those identified had their records analysed for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients who died before surgery, had an alternative procedure performed, or who were unfit for surgery, were excluded.ResultsDuring this time, 28 patients were admitted with acute cholecystitis. In total, 3 patients were excluded: 1 died before any possible intervention, 1 was unfit for surgery, and 1 received a cholecystostomy. Of the 25 included patients, only 11% (n=3) patients received a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within seven days from their hospital admission. The remaining 89% (n=22) of patients were managed conservatively with fluids, analgesia, and antibiotics.ConclusionIt can be concluded that COVID-19 has severely impacted the surgical management of acute cholecystitis as only 11% of those patients presenting were managed in accordance with AUGIS guidelines. Whether conservative management is an alternative long-term option for management remains to be seen as further long-term studies are needed.

EP-603 What a difference a year makes: Long-term follow-up of non-operative management in acute cholecystitis

AimSurgery is currently the recommended treatment for acute cholecystitis and the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS) recommends that laparoscopic cholecystectomy be performed within 72 hours of admission. However, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare delivery, this is not always possible. So, what happens to those who are managed conservatively?We observed the long-term impact of conservative management of patients admitted with acute cholecystitis over the course of one year.MethodsTwenty-eight patients were admitted with acute cholecystitis to a large tertiary hospital in November 2020; twenty-three were discharged without having had a cholecystectomy. These patients were followed up for one year and observed for the development of any gallstone-related admissions and surgical procedures.ResultsOf the 23 patients observed, 30% (n=7) were admitted for gallstone-related complications. Biliary colic was responsible for 43% of these admissions with pancreatitis (14%), cholangitis (14%), choledocholithiasis (14%), and cholecystitis (14%) causing the rest. Only 9% (n=2) received a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In both cases, it was in an emergency setting during admission for biliary colic.ConclusionLong-term observation of conservatively managed acute cholecystitis was possible in around two-thirds of patients as no gallstone-related hospital admissions were observed. Biliary colic was the most common cause of gallstone-related admissions. Longer observation is required to assess the feasibility of long-term non-operative management in acute cholecystitis.

UK Joint Advisory Group consensus statements for training and certification in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Background and study aims Despite the high-risk nature of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a robust and standardized credentialing process to ensure competency before independent practice is lacking worldwide. On behalf of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations to form the framework of ERCP training and certification in the UK. Methods Under the oversight of the JAG, a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from the British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on ERCP training and certification were formulated after formal literature review and appraised using the GRADE tool. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by JAG and relevant Specialist Advisory Committees before incorporation into the ERCP certification pathway. Results In total, 27 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (9 statements), acquisition of competence (8 statements), assessment of competence (6 statements) and post-certification support (4 statements). The consensus process led to the following criteria for ERCP certification: 1) performing ≥ 300 hands-on procedures; 2) attending a JAG-accredited ERCP skills course; 3) in modified Schutz 1–2 procedures: achieving native papilla cannulation rate ≥80%, complete bile duct clearance ≥ 70 %, successful stenting of distal biliary strictures ≥ 75 %, physically unassisted in ≥ 80 % of cases; 4) 30-day post-ERCP pancreatitis rates ≤5 %; and 5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessments. Conclusions JAG certification in ERCP has been developed following evidence-based consensus to quality assure training and to ultimately improve future standards of ERCP practice.

Resilience of elective cancer surgery systems during COVID-19 lockdowns: an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study

BackgroundSurgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify areas for health system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during COVID-19 in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. MethodsIn this international, multicentre, prospective cohort study, we enrolled patients with 15 cancer types who had a decision for surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (between Jan 21, 2020 and April 14, 2020) to Aug 31, 2020. Any hospital worldwide providing elective cancer surgery was eligible. The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Reasons for non-operation were classified as COVID-19 related (societal, operational, or personal) or unrelated. Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated for each patient during their wait for surgery and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore associations between lockdowns and non-operation. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. FindingsWe enrolled 27 700 participants, of whom 20 006 patients (8526 men and 11480 women) from 466 hospitals and 61 countries did not receive surgery after a minimum of 3-months' follow up (median 23 weeks [IQR 16–30]). All patients had a COVID-19-related reason for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% reference non-operation rate, moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84, p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (0·51, 0·50– 0·53, p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-COV-2 case notification rates, moderate (0·84, 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001) remained independently associated with non-operation. Frail patients with advanced cancer, particularly those from low-income and middle-income countries and those requiring postoperative critical care, were more likely to not have an operation. InterpretationCancer surgery systems worldwide were affected by lockdowns, including in the UK, with one in seven patients not undergoing planned surgery. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which could include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies. In the UK, a whole-health system approach is required to mitigate against further harm for NHS patients. FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, Economic and Social Research Council, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

SummaryBackgroundSurgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction.MethodsThis international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926.FindingsOf eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays.InterpretationCancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

EP.WE.718An audit of the photographic documentation of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at Cork University Hospital

Abstract Introduction A joint statement by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons in 2017 recommended that photographic documentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be a Key Performance Indicator of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD). The aim of this study was to assess this photodocumentation standard among surgeons and gastroenterologists in a tertiary referral centre. Methods Cork University Hospital endoscopy unit records were examined for a 2-month period from 01/10/20-27/11/20. OGDs were performed by 3 consultant colorectal surgeons and 4 consultant gastroenterologists over the time period. Demographic data and photodoumentation information were obtained from the Endoraad GI reporting tool. Surgeons and gastroenterologists performances was compared using the chi-squared test. Results 104 OGDs were analysed. Fifty-three (51%) OGDs were performed in women and 51(49%) OGDs were performed by surgeons. The documentation for each site was; gastro-oesophageal junction- 68% (69/102), fundus on retroflexion- 71% (72/102), gastric body- 32% (33/102), antrum- 61% (62/102), and duodenal bulb- 35% (36/102), without significant differences (p &amp;gt; 0.05) for these sites between surgeons and gastroenterologists. There was more documentation of the upper oesophagus by surgeons (31% vs.12%, p = 0.030) and there was more documentation of the distal duodenum by gastroenterologists (90% vs.47%, p &amp;lt; 0.01). Pictures were unable to be saved in two patients due to technical failure. Discussion Photodocumentation is increasingly important from a medico-legal viewpoint. There is room for improvement in our centre, but these rates are comparable to other published series. An educational session is being planned and following this adherence to photodocumentation standards will be re-examined.

709 Covid-19 Pandemic: Audit on The Management of Acute Cholecystitis

BackgroundThe definitive management of acute cholecystitis is laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the same admission if the patient is fit. As the Covid-19 pandemic emerged, evidence suggested adverse outcomes for asymptomatic Covid positive patients undergoing surgery, including increased mortality risk. Risks to theatre staff were also highlighted. This prompted changes in acute cholecystitis management guidelines.MethodThe audit aim was to assess the impact of guideline change on clinical outcomes and readmission rate for acute cholecystitis. The revised Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) guidelines were the gold standard. All inpatient admissions for acute cholecystitis during the 4-week peak of the pandemic (17/04/2020 – 14/05/2020) were included.Result24 patients were admitted with acute cholecystitis. 10 patients (41.7%) were managed with antibiotics alone, 4 patients (16.6%) underwent cholecystostomy. 12 patients (50%) were discharged within 3 days. Lack of clinical progress/ongoing symptoms was the indication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 5 cases (20.8%). 5 conservatively managed patients (20.8%) were readmitted with ongoing cholecystitis or pancreatitis.Conclusions19 patients (80%) were managed non-surgically in accordance with AUGIS guidelines. However conservative management was not always appropriate. We recommend that laparoscopic cholecystectomy should remain a management option for acute cholecystitis during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

Feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections: a UK-wide survey.

The usage of a feeding jejunostomy has been a well-established practice in maintaining nutrition in patients undergoing resections for upper gastrointestinal cancer. As surgical technique has evolved, together with the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the routine insertion of feeding jejunostomy tubes appears to be changing. A survey was constructed using Google Forms. The link was distributed to consultant upper gastrointestinal surgeons via the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons' membership database. Results were collated and analysed using Microsoft Excel. A total of 55 responses were received from 28 units across the UK; 27 respondents (49.1%) no longer routinely use feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections, oesophagectomy or gastrectomy. The most common primary feeding modality used by these respondents was oral diet 17 (65.4%), with total parenteral nutrition (19.2%) and nasojejunal (11.5%) routes also being used. Respondents who used feeding jejunostomies inserted them primarily for oesophagectomy (n = 27; 96.4%), with fewer surgeons using them in extended total gastrectomy (n = 12; 42.9%) and total gastrectomy (n = 11; 39.3%). Of the total, 20 surgeons (71.4%) would insert the jejunostomy using an open approach, with 19 (67.9%) employing a Witzel tunnel. Eleven respondents (39.3%) would continue feeding via the jejunostomy after discharge. Some 24 responders thought that feeding jejunostomies did not facilitate the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway (strongly and slightly disagree), whereas 17 considered that they did (strongly and slightly agree); 13 responders did not have strong views either way. There is a split in current practice regarding the usage of feeding jejunostomies. There is also a division of opinion on the role of feeding jejunostomy in enhanced recovery after surgery.

Chinese expert consensus and practice guideline of totally implantable access port for digestive tract carcinomas.

Totally implantable access port is a fully implantable drug delivery system that is implanted subcutaneously and can be retained for a long time. Advantages of ports include a simple nursing process, low risk of infection and embolism, and high patient comfort. In order to promote the standardized application of ports in the treatment of digestive tract tumors and reduce port-related complications, the Chinese Research Hospital Association Digestive Tumor Committee, the Chinese Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the Chinese Gastric Cancer Association, and the Gastrointestinal Surgical Group of Chinese Surgical Society Affiliated to Chinese Medical Association have organized multidisciplinary expert discussions at the General Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army and nation-wide expert letter reviews and on-site seminars, and formulated an expert consensus of the operation guidelines.

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

SummaryBackgroundThe impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsThis international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation.FindingsThis analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p<0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p<0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p<0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047).InterpretationPostoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed...

Chinese consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer with liver metastases.

Background:The incidence of gastric cancer with liver metastases (GCLM) is 9.9–18.7%, with a median survival time of 11 months and a 5-year survival rate <20%. Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) is gradually gaining recognition as the most important method. However, specific treatment plans remain unclear. The aim of study was to provide a consensus to improve the diagnosis and treatment of GCLM.Methods:We brought together experts from relevant medical fields across China, including the Chinese Research Hospital Association Digestive Tumor Committee, Chinese Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Chinese Gastric Cancer Association, and the Gastrointestinal Surgical Group of Chinese Surgical Society Affiliated to Chinese Medical Association, to discuss and formulate this consensus.Results:A consensus was reached on the diagnosis and treatment of GCLM. Moreover, we have developed a new clinical classification system, the Chinese Type for Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases, based on the likelihood of a surgical treatment being successful.Conclusions:The MDT mode should be implemented throughout all treatment of GCLM.A Chinese version of this expert consensus has been published in the Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery (Volume 39, Issue 10, p. 405-411). Written permission was obtained from the Chinese Journal of Practical Surgery to disseminate the expert consensus in English.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery

BackgroundWith rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. MethodsDelphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. ResultsIn total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. ConclusionA modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

A Modified AUGIS Delphi Process to Establish Future Research Priorities in Benign Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery.

The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities amongst benign upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgeons in the United Kingdom. Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high-priority research questions. Four hundred and twenty-seven questions were submitted in phase I, and 51 with a benign UGI focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Twenty-eight questions were ranked in phase III. A final list of 11 high-priority questions had an emphasis on acute pancreatitis, Barrett's oesophagus and benign biliary disease. A modified Delphi process has produced a list of 11 high-priority research questions in benign UGI surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research.

Abstracts of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, 22nd AUGIS Annual Meeting 25-27 September 2019, ACC Conference Centre, Liverpool.

Abstracts of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, 22nd AUGIS Annual Meeting 25-27 September 2019, ACC Conference Centre, Liverpool.

A modified AUGIS Delphi process to establish research priorities in bariatric and metabolic surgery.

Delphi methodology may be utilized to develop consensus opinion among a group of experts. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the future research priorities among bariatric and metabolic healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons and the British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritization by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high-priority research questions. Fifty-one bariatric and metabolic surgery-focused questions were identified in phase I. Thirty-five questions were taken forward for prioritization in phase II. Eleven high-priority questions were identified in phase III. The final list of high-priority questions had an emphasis on the pathophysiology and long-term sequelae of bariatric and metabolic surgery. A modified Delphi process has produced a list of 11 high-priority research questions in bariatric and metabolic surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritized questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.