European Society Of Coloproctology Research Articles

European Society of Coloproctology Colorectal Robotic Surgery Training for the Trainers Course - the first pilot experience.

Currently, there is no established colorectal specific robotic surgery Train the Trainer (TTT) course. The aim was to develop and evaluate such a course which can then be further developed to be incorporated within the planned European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP)/European School of Coloproctology (ESC) robotic colorectal surgery training curriculum. After identifying the need for such a course within a training programme, the course was developed by a subgroup of the ESCP/ESC. A scoping literature review was performed and the content and materials for the course were developed by a team consisting of two gastroenterologists with a combined experience of 30years of facilitating TTT courses, a robotic surgeon and proctor with laparoscopic TTT faculty experience and experienced robotic and laparoscopic colorectal trainers. The course was evaluated by asking delegates to complete pre- and post-course questionnaires. There were eight delegates on the course from across Europe. Delegates increased their knowledge of each of the course learning objectives and identified learning points in order to change practice. The feedback from the delegates of the course was positive across several areas and all felt that they had achieved their own personal objectives in attending the course. This pilot robotic colorectal TTT course has achieved its aim and demonstrated many positives. There is a need for such a course and the evaluation processes have provided opportunities for reflection, which will allow the development/tailoring of future robotic colorectal TTT courses to help develop robotic training further.

European Society of Coloproctology: guidelines for the management of diverticular disease of the colon.

The goal of this European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) guideline project is to give an overview of the existing evidence on the management of diverticular disease, primarily as a guidance to surgeons. The guideline was developed during several working phases including three voting rounds and one consensus meeting. The two project leads (JKS and EA) appointed by the ESCP guideline committee together with one member of the guideline committee (WB) agreed on the methodology, decided on six themes for working groups (WGs) and drafted a list of research questions. Senior WG members, mostly colorectal surgeons within the ESCP, were invited based on publication records and geographical aspects. Other specialties were included in the WGs where relevant. In addition, one trainee or PhD fellow was invited in each WG. All six WGs revised the research questions if necessary, did a literature search, created evidence tables where feasible, and drafted supporting text to each research question and statement. The text and statement proposals from each WG were arranged as one document by the first and last authors before online voting by all authors in two rounds. For the second voting ESCP national representatives were also invited. More than90% agreement was considered a consensus. The final phrasing of the statements with <90% agreement was discussed in a consensus meeting at the ESCP annual meeting in Vienna in September 2019. Thereafter, the first and the last author drafted the final text of the guideline and circulated it for final approval and for a third and final online voting of rephrased statements. This guideline contains 38 evidence based consensus statements on the management of diverticular disease. This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date summary of the current knowledge of the management of diverticular disease as a guidance for clinicians and patients.

The ACPGBI recommends pause for reflection on transanal total mesorectal excision.

The ACPGBI recommends pause for reflection on transanal total mesorectal excision.

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.

Surgical Training During and After COVID-19: A Joint Trainee and Trainers Manifesto.

This article's aim to describe the impact of COVID-19 crisis on surgical training and trainees, and the potential long-term effects of the pandemics on the specialist training programmes globally Due to COVID-19 pandemic being prioritized, trainees are called to help support the increased workload of the hospital units and emergency department Caring for patients is our primary role It is important to be ready to forgo previously conceived ideas of defined roles and be able to adapt to a fast-evolving scenario Of note, in some countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, recently graduated medical students are being appointed to join health forces at an earlier stage in their career, to face the overwhelming COVID-19 emergency More importantly, some governments decided to maintain the status of "junior doctors" or trainees for those who were due to complete their training programme during the COVID-19 outbreak Many trainees felt that a more appropriate policy would have been to allow them graduating, and then appoint them as consultants It is difficult to draw conclusions on this in the context of an emergency, but this should be considered in the future and pathways of conduct should be defined at the time of developing surgical training programmes Surgical trainees are at the frontline of many hospitals In most cases, they are being required to provide medical support during the crisis As future surgeons, their careers are likely to be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak in several ways Once COVID-19 emergency is settled, revision of the training programmes to include the critical issues raised during the crisis is desirable, globally Finally, only through the efforts of all team members including consultants as trainers, trainees, and other health workers we are going to be able to overcome COVID-19 pandemic

Scoring systems as outcomes assessment of the treatments for haemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature.

The comparison between haemorrhoidal treatments is still unclear. Attempts have been made to adopt a unifying postoperative scoring system and thus ensure adequate comparison between clinical trials. We aimed to systematically review the available outcome scores of haemorrhoidal treatment. MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of science, Embase and Cochrane were searched from database implementation until the December 6th 2019. All studies describing or referencing a score to assess haemorrhoidal disease treatment were included. Likert scale alone, incontinence score alone, general assessment of quality of life or scores developed for other proctologic disorders were excluded. The main outcome measures were validation of the scores and correlation of the score items to the core outcome set for haemorrhoidal disease developed by the European Society of Coloproctology. From the 633 records initially screened, 22 studies were included: 8 original articles describing a scoring system and 14 referencing a previously described scoring system. Only 1 score was validated by an external prospective cohort. All the scores evaluated the symptoms of haemorrhoidal disease. No score integrated the disease recurrences or patient's satisfaction. Scores values tended to decrease postoperatively. The scores described by Gerjy et al. and by Shanmugan et al. are available questionnaires, which have been validated and used in various studies. These scores might help researchers for comparative studies between treatment modalities and optimize haemorrhoids treatment.

Impact of surgical complications on the operating surgeon.

The involvement of surgeons in major adverse outcomes can have a negative impact on their personal and professional lives, as well as on patient outcomes. Healthcare professionals involved in such incidents have been referred to as 'second victims'. We designed an online survey to study the impact of operative complications on surgeons' professional and personal lives. An online survey of general, gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreato-biliary and vascular surgeons was conducted using the Twitter feed of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and the European Society of Coloproctology over an 8-week period. Questionnaires were completed by 82 participants. Ninety-one per cent of respondents were consultant surgeons, 37% with more than 15years' experience. Eighty-three per cent were colorectal surgeons. The majority of surgeons (95%) reported that their practice had been affected as a result of serious complications and 54% suggested that it had had a negative impact on their family life. Fifty-five per cent of respondents mentioned lack of support in their institution for healthcare professionals involved in adverse outcomes and an existing blame culture. Suggestions for improvement included mentoring (41%), counselling (38%), openness (66%), peer support groups (52%) and human factors training (32%). This survey highlights that the majority of surgeons involved in serious complications are adversely affected. Those involved in the running of surgical services need to improve support for surgeons in the aftermath of such events.

Training in colorectal surgery in Europe and 20years of the European Board of Surgical Qualification coloproctology examination.

Training in colorectal surgery across Europe is not yet standardized. The European Board of Surgical Qualification (EBSQ) coloproctology examination has been held annually since 1998. The aims of this study were to illustrate the current situation of coloproctology specialization in Europe and to analyse the EBSQ examinations held over the last 20years. A survey, focused on current training and education in colorectal surgery in Europe, was conducted among all national representatives of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) in 2018. Candidate demographics (1998-2018) and the results of the EBSQ examination (2007-2018) were analysed. In Europe, there are currently 26 national colorectal societies, 27 national annual colorectal meetings, 16 national specialized training programmes and 13 national colorectal fellowships. Six countries have board certification in colorectal surgery and five a dedicated examination. During the last 20years, 475 candidates from 29 countries, of whom 88 (19%) were women, passed the EBSQ examination. The pass rate was higher in younger applicants (<42years, P=0.01). The success rate was higher for candidates with academic experience (more than five publications or presentations) and with an academic title (thesis) (P=0.01). Colorectal surgical training is still not standardized in Europe, although efforts have been made to recognize colorectal surgery as an independent speciality. The number of holders of the EBSQ Diploma has increased over the years, demonstrating the acceptance of the examination among European surgeons. Young candidates with an academic profile are the most successful.

Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre, prospective audit.

The optimal bowel preparation strategy to minimise the risk of anastomotic leak is yet to be determined. This study aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP+Abx) was associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leak when compared to mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP) or no bowel preparation (NBP). A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 Left Sided Colorectal Resection audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective left sided colonic or rectal resection with primary anastomosis between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Of 3676 patients across 343 centres in 47 countries, 618 (16.8%) received MBP+ABx, 1945 MBP (52.9%) and 1099 patients NBP (29.9%). Patients undergoing MBP+ABx had the lowest overall rate of anastomotic leak (6.1%, 9.2%, 8.7% respectively) in unadjusted analysis. After case-mix adjustment using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, MBP+Abx was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.52, 0.30-0.92, P=0.02) but MBP was not (OR 0.92, 0.63-1.36, P=0.69) compared to NBP. This non-randomised study adds 'real-world', contemporaneous, and prospective evidence of the beneficial effects of combined mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in the prevention of anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection across diverse settings. We have also demonstrated limited uptake of this strategy in current international colorectal practice.

The 2017 European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) international snapshot audit of left colon, sigmoid and rectal resections ‐ Executive Summary

Number of patients (%) [n = 5641] The heterogeneity of the overall cohort, in terms of both pathologies being treated and operations undertaken, made any over-arching analysis exploring outcomes for the full cohort both challenging to create and difficult to interpret. Instead, we report here five subgroup analyses in parallel, based on the following pre-specified research questions:

An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P=0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P=0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P=0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P=0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P<0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P<0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

Evaluating the incidence of pathological complete response in current international rectal cancer practice: the barriers to widespread safe deferral of surgery.

The mainstay of management for locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, a complete response may be detected clinically and radiologically (cCR) prior to surgery or pathologically after surgery (pCR). We aim to report the overall complete pathological response (pCR) rate and the reliability of detecting a cCR by conventional pre-operative imaging. A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients treated by elective rectal resection were included. A pCR was defined as a ypT0N0 EMVI negative primary tumour; a partial response represented any regression from baseline staging following chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. The secondary endpoint was agreement between post-treatment MRI restaging (yMRI) and final pathological staging. Of 2572 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 277 participating centres across 44 countries, 673 (26.2%) underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The pCR rate was 10.3% (67/649), with a partial response in 35.9% (233/649) patients. Comparison of AJCC stage determined by post-treatment yMRI with final pathology showed understaging in 13% (55/429) and overstaging in 34% (148/429). Agreement between yMRI and final pathology for T-stage, N-stage, or AJCC status were each graded as 'fair' only (n=429, Kappa 0.25, 0.26 and 0.35 respectively). The reported pCR rate of 10% highlights the potential for non-operative management in selected cases. The limited strength of agreement between basic conventional post-chemoradiotherapy imaging assessment techniques and pathology suggest alternative markers of response should be considered, in the context of controlled clinical trials.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and clinical guidance: Paper 1: Introduction & Methods.

This manuscript provides the introduction and detailed methodology used in subsequent reviews to assess the outcomes of surgical interventions with the primary intent of treating chronic constipation in adults and to develop recommendations for practice. PRISMA guidance was adhered to throughout. A literature search was performed in public databases between January 1960 and February 2016. Studies that fulfilled strictly-defined PICOS (patients, interventions, controls, outcome, and study design) criteria were included. The process involved two groups of participants: (i): 'a clinical guidance group' of 18 UK experts (including junior support) who performed the systematic reviews and produced summary evidence statements (SES) based strictly on data synthesis in each review. The same group then produced prototype graded practice recommendations (GPRs) based on coalescence of SES and expert opinion; (ii): a European Consensus group of 18 ESCP (European Society of Coloproctology) nominated experts from nine European countries evaluated the appropriateness of each prototype GPR based on published RAND/UCLA methodology. An overview of the search results is provided in this manuscript. A total of 156 studies from 307 full text articles (from 2551 initially screened records) were included, providing data on procedures characterized by: (i) colonic resection (n=40); (ii) rectal suspension (n=18); (iii) rectal wall excision (n=44); (iv) rectovaginal septum reinforcement (n=47); (v) sacral nerve stimulation (n=7). The overall quality of evidence was poor with 113/156 (72.4%) studies providing only Oxford level IV evidence. The best evidence was extracted for rectal excisional procedures, where the majority of studies were Oxford level I or II. The five subsequent reviews provide a total of 99 SES (reflecting perioperative variables, efficacy, harms and prognostic variables) that contributed to 100 prototype GPRs covering patient selection, procedural considerations and patient counselling. The final manuscript details the 85/100 GPRs that were deemed appropriate by European Consensus (remaining 15 were all uncertain) and future research recommendations. This manuscript and the following 6 papers suggest that the evidence base for surgical management of chronic constipation is currently poor although some expert consensus exists on best practice. Further studies are required to inform future commissioning of treatments and of research funding.

EuroSurg: Across Europe a new novel student-driven research group in surgery.

Dear Editor, In 2013, a student-oriented working group called STARSurg (The Student Audit and Research in Surgery) directed to medical students and surgical residents was founded in the UK. STARSurg is a group offering students the opportunity to participate in high-quality studies and encouraging them to be clinicians engaged in active research in the future (1). The first study of STARSurg was joined by more than 250 students from 109 hospitals. This study was related to the post-operative impacts of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal tract surgery, and was performed prospectively on 1500 patients. All participants were co-authors in the publication on completion of the study (2). STARSurg have been established in all schools in England and Ireland, and now includes more than 180 hospitals. All manuscripts of STARSurg projects can be accessed through PubMed and can be used as references. Everyone involved in studies is included in these publications. In some countries, students do not have the opportunity to participate in surgical research. It is expected that students would benefit from such type of working groups by actively participating in projects in collaboration with students from various countries, and that their research related abilities would improve. Students were invited to the ESCP (European Society of Coloproctology) Congress in Dublin in September 2015, to hold a meeting aiming to develop an international research network. The student-oriented research model developed by STARSurg was discussed, and it was decided to conduct a cohort study focused on international students at the beginning of 2016. The students, guided by experienced surgeons in this debate, chose to investigate the relationship between obesity and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery. This study was based on the Determining Surgical Complications in the Overweight (DISCOVER) study that was successfully held in the UK and Ireland by STARSurg (3). During this session in Dublin, students decided to work in partnership and to establish a working group they called EuroSurg. This group has active members in Ireland, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Netherlands and United Kingdom, and these countries also have a national management committee of their own. Students from each participating country focused on publishing their results in the ESCP Congress in 2016, while developing the international cohort study protocol. This initiative is supported by STARsurg, ESCP, Societa Italiana di Chirurgie Colo-Rettal and many experienced surgeons. The letters sent by EuroSurg working group was published online in the Colorectal Disease (4). This article stated that EuroSurg is conducted by students and residents, that it is supported by ESCP, as well as listing the countries participating in EuroSurg. In Turkey, most medical students and surgical residents are not involved in formal research education and their participation to studies is limited. An official network supporting, controlling, and improving residents and students’ research skills should be established. More than 120 students from 20 Medical Faculty from Turkey has been included in this study. STARSurg decided to benefit from social media to be in constant contact with participants (5). EuroSurg was able to recruit many participants from more than 60 universities in Europe by using this method since December 2015. We invite all interested students, residents and surgeons to register to our website to take part in the unique opportunity of the Eurosurg working group (www.eurosurg.org) (6).

The European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Fellowship

The European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Fellowship

Video Sessions

Colorectal DiseaseVolume 16, Issue s2 p. 40-40 Video Sessions Video Sessions First published: 22 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12642Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Supporting Information Filename Description codi12642-sup-0001-Video.zipZip archive, 55 MB Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Volume16, Issues2Special Issue: Tripartite Colorectal Meeting of the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS); Association of Coloproctology of GB & Ireland; the Section of Coloproctology, Royal Societyof Medicine; the Colon and Rectal Surgery Section, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, in association with the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), 30 June – 3 July 2014, Birmingham, UKJuly 2014Pages 40-40 RelatedInformation

Nursing Forum

Colorectal DiseaseVolume 16, Issue s2 p. 38-39 Nursing Forum Nursing Forum First published: 22 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12641Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume16, Issues2Special Issue: Tripartite Colorectal Meeting of the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS); Association of Coloproctology of GB & Ireland; the Section of Coloproctology, Royal Societyof Medicine; the Colon and Rectal Surgery Section, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, in association with the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), 30 June – 3 July 2014, Birmingham, UKJuly 2014Pages 38-39 RelatedInformation

Author Index

Colorectal DiseaseVolume 16, Issue s2 p. 213-226 Author Index Author Index First published: 22 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12646Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume16, Issues2Special Issue: Tripartite Colorectal Meeting of the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS); Association of Coloproctology of GB & Ireland; the Section of Coloproctology, Royal Societyof Medicine; the Colon and Rectal Surgery Section, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, in association with the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), 30 June – 3 July 2014, Birmingham, UKJuly 2014Pages 213-226 RelatedInformation

Tuesday Posters

Colorectal DiseaseVolume 16, Issue s2 p. 112-158 Tuesday Posters Tuesday Posters First published: 22 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12644_1Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume16, Issues2Special Issue: Tripartite Colorectal Meeting of the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS); Association of Coloproctology of GB & Ireland; the Section of Coloproctology, Royal Societyof Medicine; the Colon and Rectal Surgery Section, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, in association with the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), 30 June – 3 July 2014, Birmingham, UKJuly 2014Pages 112-158 RelatedInformation

CSSANZ Fellow Paper

Colorectal DiseaseVolume 16, Issue s2 p. 3-3 Visiting Fellow Paper CSSANZ Fellow Paper First published: 22 August 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12639_1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume16, Issues2Special Issue: Tripartite Colorectal Meeting of the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS); Association of Coloproctology of GB & Ireland; the Section of Coloproctology, Royal Societyof Medicine; the Colon and Rectal Surgery Section, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, in association with the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), 30 June – 3 July 2014, Birmingham, UKJuly 2014Pages 3-3 RelatedInformation