Trainee Research Collaborative Research Articles

40. Emergency versus semi-elective management of mandible fractures. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study

Recent evidence suggests that acute emergency management of mandible fractures does not improve surgical outcomes yet is associated with increased financial burden. Current NHS policy advocating for increased adoption of day-case and semi-elective surgical procedures to reduce bed strain must be balanced with providing timely, effective treatment. Our research aims to determine patient groups currently managed via semi-elective admission and whether this can be extended to other groups to provide safe and effective management of mandible fractures.

Predictors and risk factors for admission to critical care in cervicofacial infections: a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study

Cervicofacial infections carry significant morbidity. Patients present on a broad spectrum of severity, with some requiring outpatient management and others admission to higher level care. Recognition of risk factors is helpful in decision making regarding the need for admission to higher level care. Prospective data were captured on 1002 patients in 25 centres across 17 regions of the United Kingdom (UK) by the Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC). Patients admitted to critical care were compared with those who received ward-level care. Multivariate and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to identify predictors for critical care admission. Our results show that the best predictor for critical care admission is the presence of three or more features of airway compromise (AUC 0.779), followed by C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L (OR 2.70; 95% CI 1.59 to 4.58; p < 0.005), submandibular space involvement (OR 3.82; 95% CI 1.870 to 7.81; p = 0.003), white cell count (WCC) >12 × 109/ dl (1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10; p = 0.03), and positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (OR 2.78; CI 1.35 to 5.80; p = 0.006). Admission to critical care is multifactorial, however, the presence of three or more features of airway compromise is the best predictor. Awareness of this alongside other key clinical findings in cervicofacial infections may allow for the early recognition of patients who may require escalation to critical care.

Airway management, intensive care requirement, and corticosteroid use in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study

Cervicofacial infection (CFI) is a frequently encountered presentation to Oral and Maxillofacial Departments (OMFS). The United Kingdom has recently seen cessation of all routine community dental treatment due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and consequently an initial modification of treatment received in secondary care. Subsequent airway difficulties and the need for level 2 High Dependency Unit (HDU) or level 3 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is a concern to surgeons and anaesthetists alike. The availability of skilled staff and appropriate facilities can be variable. It is imperative to understand the resource implications of CFI with respect to airway management and critical care utilisation. Adequate provision is fundamental for optimal care. A national, multicentre, trainee-led audit was carried out across 17 hospitals in the UK from May to September 2017. Information recorded included demographic features, presentation, airway management, medical and surgical treatment, and steroid administration. One thousand and two presentations (1002) were recorded. Forty-five percent were female, with a mean (range) age of 37.5 years (0–94). Regarding surgical airway management, 63.4% had a standard intubation (oral 42%, nasal 21.4%). Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) was performed in 28% and surgical airway required in 0.9%. Impending airway compromise at the time of presentation was 1.7%. Following surgical incision and drainage, 96.1% of patients returned to a general ward, 2.7% to Level 3, and 1.1% to Level 2 care. The return to theatre was 2.8%, and 0.7% required reintubation. There was an association between corticosteroid administration and duration of intubation. Those who received steroids were more likely to remain intubated postoperatively (p = 0.006), require a higher level of postoperative care (p < 0.001), and require a return to theatre (p = 0.019). Postoperatively, patients who received steroids were less likely to be extubated at the close of the procedure. Intubated patients who received multiple steroid doses postoperatively were extubated with less frequency those that received a single dose. To our knowledge, this dataset is the largest ever recorded for CFI. Our results showed a high requirement for advanced airway management in this cohort. The requirement for surgical airway was low, but the significance of this situation should not be underestimated. The relatively frequent need for care at levels 2 or 3 within this cohort also placed a significant demand on already overburdened resources. Knowledge of care requirements for these patients will inform resource planning.

Emergency versus semi-elective management of mandible fractures: a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study.

Recent evidence suggests that acute emergency management of mandible fractures does not improve surgical outcomes yet is associated with increased financial burden. Current NHS policy advocating for increased adoption of day-case and semi-elective surgical procedures to reduce bed strain must be balanced with providing timely, effective treatment. Our research aims to determine patient groups currently managed via semi-elective admission and whether this can be extended to other groups to provide safe and effective management of mandible fractures. A multi-national trainee-led audit of mandibular fractures across 49 units was completed by the Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC). Each unit prospectively collected data on fractures on admission and at follow-up. Data collected included patient demographics, behaviour, health, injury, timing to intervention and surgical complications. Data were collected on 947 mandibular fractures. Of the surgically managed patients, 649 (90%) were managed via acute emergency admission at the time of presentation, while 68 (10%) were managed semi-electively. Patient demographics, injury pattern and mechanism appeared to significantly affect timing of management, whereas patient behaviour, health status, timing of injury and presentation did not. Semi-elective management was associated with a significantly shorter inpatient duration (0.9 versus 1.9 days, p=0.000) with no differences in readmission, antibiotic usage or surgical complications (p=1.000, RR 1.030). Our study demonstrates the efficacy of planned admissions and semi-elective management of mandibular fractures. Simple mandibular fractures in compliant patients are suitable for semi-elective treatment. Holistic patient assessment and tailored surgical planning is crucial in determining admission modality to effectively manage mandibular trauma.

Risk factors associated with short-term complications in mandibular fractures: the MANTRA study-a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC).

Complications following mandibular fractures occur in 9-23% of patients. Identifying those at risk is key to prevention. Previous studies highlighted smoking, age and time from injury to presentation as risk factors but rarely recorded other possible confounders. In this paper, we use a collaborative snapshot audit to document novel risk factors and confirm established risks for complications following the treatment of mandibular fractures. The audit was carried out by 122 OMFS trainees across the UK and Ireland (49 centres) over 6months, coordinated by the Maxillofacial Surgery Trainees Research Collaborative. Variables recorded included basic demography, medical and social history, injury mechanism and type, management and 30-day outcome. Nine hundred and forty-seven (947) patients with fractured mandibles were recorded. Surgical management was carried out in 76.3%. Complications at 30days occurred 65 (9%) of those who were managed surgically. Risk factors for complications included male sex, increasing age, any medical history, increasing number of cigarettes smoked per week, increasing alcohol use per week, worse oral hygiene and increased time from injury to presentation. We have used a large prospective snapshot audit to confirm established risk factors and identify novel risk factors. We demonstrate that time from injury to presentation is confounded by other indicators of poor health behaviour. These results are important in designing trial protocols for management of mandibular fractures and in targeting health interventions to patients at highest risk of complications.

Delivering Large-Scale Neurosurgical Studies in the UK: The Impact of Trainees

The UK neurosurgical community has a track record of delivering high-quality, practice-changing clinical research studies, facilitated by a robust clinical research infrastructure and close collaborations between neurosurgical centers. More recently, these large-scale studies have been conceived, developed, and delivered by neurosurgical trainees, working under the umbrella of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative (BNTRC). In this paper, we outline the current landscape of large-scale neurosurgical studies in the UK, focusing on the role of trainees in facilitating this research. Importantly, we focus on our experience of trainee-led studies, including the development of the network, current challenges, and future directions. We believe that a similar model can be applied in different settings and countries, which will drive up the quality of neurosurgical research, ultimately benefiting future neurosurgical patients.

1616 Antibiotic Use in The Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Survey of Current Practice in the UK

Abstract Aim Traumatic mandibular fractures account for a significant proportion of UK oral and maxillofacial trauma. Prophylactic antibiotics is standard practice for management of these patients, however evidence for this is weak and relevant RCTs are insufficiently powered or poorly designed. The Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) aims to survey current antibiotic regimens in UK OMFS units treating mandibular trauma, Method A multicentre online survey was shared via email and social media. Questions focused on current practices regarding management of mandibular fractures during pre-, peri-, and post-operative phases. Results 89 responses from 50 UK OMFS units including 76 trainees and 4 consultants were collated over 2.5-months. 45 units routinely admitted patients; 88% clinicians starting pre-operative IV antibiotics;11 different pre-operative antibiotic regimens were identified across all surveyed clinicians, with 65% prescribing Augmentin, and remaining 35% using variable combinations of penicillins with 4 other antibiotic classifications. 5 different protocols were identified in use across the 88.8 % of respondents who chose to prescribe post-operative antibiotics. Conclusions There is inter-unit and inter-clinician variability in prophylactic antibiotic prescription in UK patients undergoing ORIF mandibles. Given antimicrobial resistance has been declared a WHO public health threat, efforts must be made to reduce antibiotic overuse and understand regional situation specific sensitivities. The survey highlights need for nationalised protocols for antibiotics use in mandibular fractures, if at all. This survey of clinician reported practice will be used to inform a prospective observational study on 30-day outcomes of ORIF mandibles taking into account patient factors, fracture pattern, fixation type and antibiotic use.

Antibiotic practices in non-condylar mandibular fractures: a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) UK-wide survey

Non-condylar mandibular fractures are consdered ‘open’ fractures and as such are thought to require prophylactic antibiotics. There is no overall consensus on the optimal regimen or choice of antibiotic in the preoperative and postoperative periods due to a lack of high-quality evidence. We therefore set out to ascertain the current UK-wide practice of antibiotic prescribing for non-condylar mandibular fractures. We used a web-based online survey (Google Forms) that was disseminated via email and social media platforms to oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) consultants and trainees of all grades. The questions focused on usual antibiotic practices and typical clinical management of non-condylar mandibular fractures. We gathered information on preoperative antibiotics, and on perioperative and postoperative periods. We collected data from 50 different UK OMFS units representing a broad snapshot of national practice. The majority of responders were speciality trainees (36%) followed by dental core trainees (34%). A total of 45/50 centres routinely admitted patients, and preoperative intravenous antibiotics were commenced on admission by 77/89 respondents, intravenous being the chosen route in all cases. In the preoperative period 81% prescribe co-amoxiclav. In 91% of cases, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was on general emergency (CEPOD) operating lists, whilst dedicated OMFS trauma lists accounted for 9%. With respect to timing, 49% aimed to carry out ORIF within 24 hours from the time of admission, 44% aimed for surgery within 24 - 48 hours, and 6% aimed for surgery on a semielective basis (48 hours or more). Postoperative antibiotics were prescribed routinely by 88% of responders. Preoperative intravenous prophylactic antibiotics are commonplace in non-condylar mandibular fractures. This UK-wide survey demonstrated significant variability in antibiotic prescribing practices, especially in the postoperative period. Most units still rely on CEPOD emergency theatres to provide the capacity for ORIF in this patient group.

V6 PRIMROSE: A national trainee collaborative-led, multicentre prospective audit on the care of breast cancer patients with central nervous system disease in the UK

PRIMROSEA national trainee collaborative-led, multicentre prospective audit on the care of breast cancer patients with central nervous system disease in the UKMark P Lythgoe1, Vinton WT Cheng2, Hayley S McKenzie3, Amy Kwan4, Apostolos Konstantis5, Ruichong Ma6, Pei J Teo7, Amanda Fitzpatrick8, Laura Woodhouse9 & Carlo Palmieri10 on behalf of the BNTRC† and PRIMROSE study group1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, 2Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds, 3University of Southampton, Southampton, 4University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 5The Princess Alexandra NHS Trust, Harlow 6Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, 7Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, 8Institute of Cancer Research, London, 9The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, 10University of Liverpool, Liverpool, †British Neurosurgical Trainee Research CollaborativeIntroductionBreast cancer is the commonest cancer in the UK and the 4th leading cause of cancer-related death. Breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) are a poor prognostic indicator and associated with very poor survival and only a minority of patients survive >1 year despite oncological treatment. The rising prevalence of patients with BCBM represent an increasing unmet healthcare need. However, in the UK there is a paucity of data about prevalence, survival and management. Guidance on managing brain metastases is improving, however it is unclear how this has been applied in the context of BCBM and whether recommended standards are uniformly applied across the UKMethodsPRIMROSE is a trainee collaborative-led initiative to estimate BCBM prevalence, assess current practice (comparing national/international standards) and determine long term outcomes/sequalae. Anonymised data is being pooled via secure REDCap database collating demographics, clinico-pathological information, prior treatment, BCBM treatment and other key variables. All UK hospitals can register, with recruitment driven by trainees via the UK Breast Cancer Trainees Research Collaborative Group and British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative. Senior oversight will be provided by a local consultant oncologist or neurosurgeon.ResultsOpened in Jan 2020, 180 datasets have been entered, despite significant disrupted due to COVID-19 from Feburary to May). Over 25 sites are open/in the process of joining. Trainee networks have been established in all regions of the UK with the exception of Yorkshire and The Humber, East of England and North East England. Promotion of the network has occurred at significant oncology conferences (e.g. San Antonio Breast Meeting, and National Cancer Research Institute). We plan to expand to all major UK neurosurgical and oncology centres by December 2020, with data collection completed by December 2021.ConclusionsPRIMROSE demonstrates the utility of trainee collaborative networks in rapidly organising large-scale multicentre data collection to understand care of patients at a national level. Such information will be important for identifying current pactice and act as a benchmark for improving local service delivery for patients with BCBM.

UK Chiari 1 Study: protocol for a prospective, observational, multicentre study

IntroductionChiari 1 malformation (CM1) is a structural abnormality of the hindbrain characterised by the descent of the cerebellar tonsils through the foramen magnum. The management of patients with CM1 remains...

Stress hyperglycaemia or diabetes mellitus in cervicofacial infections? A Maxillofacial Surgery Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is thought to be associated with poor outcomes in cervicofacial infections (CFI), yet little is known about the prevalence of DM in these cases. Stress hyperglycaemia (SHG), a normal physiological response to inflammation, is distinct from DM, though they overlap and may be conflated. We aimed to establish the prevalence of DM and SHG in CFI, and to determine the effect of each on severity of disease and outcome measures. The Maxillofacial Surgery Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) carried out an audit of all patients with CFI admitted to 25 hospitals between May and October 2017. To the best of our knowledge this created the largest prospective database on CFI, with information collected on presentation, source of infection, biological data, and outcomes. We recorded 1002 admissions, of which 78 (7.8%) had DM. Random blood glucose was measured on admission in 401 patients (40%), of which 45 (11%) displayed SHG. Patients diagnosed with DM were more likely to have infections arising from a salivary source (13% vs 4%, p<0.00), more returns to theatre (9% vs 2%, p<0.00), and a longer hospital stay (median (range) 2 (0-34) vs 1 (0-139) day, p=0.01) than non-DM patients. In contrast, patients with SHG had more severe disease (multiple fascial spaces involved in 59% vs 19%, p=0.01, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome present in 66% vs 45% p=0.03), but did not have significantly more returns to theatre (2% vs 3%, p=0.91) or longer stays in hospital (median (range) 1 (0-63) vs 1 (0-6), p=0.55) than normoglycaemic patients. The prevalence of DM in our cohort was only marginally higher than in the general population, despite previous retrospective case reviews suggesting a significantly higher prevalence. SHG was not associated with poor outcomes in our cohort, but is likely to be associated with a small increased risk of subsequent diagnosis of DM, which can be quantified using a calculator tool. On discharge, it is important to give appropriate advice about diet, lifestyle, exercise, and weight loss to all patients with CFI.

Clinical features and presentation of cervicofacial infection: a Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study

Cervicofacial infection (CFI) is a common presentation to the Oral and Maxillofacial (OMFS) department and accounts for significant emergency activity. The current study aims to understand the aetiology, management, and clinical features of patients hospitalised with CFI. Our study included all patients admitted for management of CFI from May to October 2017 at 25 OMFS units across 17 UK regions. Data were collected prospectively and included age, comorbidities, prior treatment received, markers of sepsis, and presenting clinical features. One thousand and two (1002) admissions were recorded; 546 (54.5%) were male. Median (range) age was 34 (1–94) years. The most common presenting complaints were trismus (46%) and dysphagia (27%). Airway compromise was present in 1.7% of cases. Odontogenic infection accounted for 822/1002 (82%) admissions. Of those with an infection of odontogenic origin, 453/822 (55.1%) had received previous treatment. Two-thirds of those who had received treatment were managed by antibiotics alone (300/453, 66.2%). Patients met criteria for sepsis in 437/1002 (43.6%) of CFI, and in 374/822 (45.5%) of odontogenic infections. This is the largest study worldwide of patients requiring inpatient management for CFI. Infection due to odontogenic origin is the most frequent reason for admission and nearly half do not seek treatment before presentation. Patients with CFI often present late in their disease and frequently meet criteria for sepsis, requiring timely and aggressive treatment to ensure optimum outcomes. Trismus is an emerging dominant feature with all the implications related to the anaesthetic management of these patients. Knowledge of these factors has implications for the referrer, triage, the emergency department, the anaesthetic team, and members of the OMFS team.

Airway problems and higher level care in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) Project

Airway problems and higher level care in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) Project

Steroid use in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) project

Introduction: Defining current inpatient management of cervicofacial infections is key to identifying strategies to optimise management. Steroid use is beneficial in peritonsillar abscess and orbital abscess, but there are no studies of steroid use in odontogenic cervicofacial infections. Our previous research identified widespread variation in practice, necessitating a national project to define current practice.

Defining antibiotic use in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) project

Defining antibiotic use in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) project

The development and progress of the maxillofacial trainee research collaborative (MTReC). How trainees can design and deliver national research projects

Introduction The Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) is a committee of 9 trainees, 3 consultant advisers, and a national network of trainee regional leads and collaborators. It involves trainees of all grades in research and allows them to develop and recruit to national projects. We present the rationale behind trainee collaboratives, how they can improve training, inform and change our practice.

How frequently is pus sent and how often does it change practice? A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) Project

The Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative performed a national snapshot audit of inpatient management of cervicofacial infection in UK maxillofacial units between May and September 2017.Our previous research identified widespread variation in practice, necessitating a national project to define current practice. The usefulness of microbiology sampling is one such area of variability and uncertainty.

08. Can we trust our data? A comparative analysis of iBRA and HES data

Introduction: Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK. Data from the iBRA study demonstrated implant loss at 3 months as high as 30%. Data acquired by GIRFT found an implant loss rate of 7.5% at 12 months nationally. GIRFT relies on HES data, whereas the iBRA study was a National Trainee Research Collaborative. We have used HES data to validate our iBRA cohort.

National prospective observational study of inpatient management of adults with epistaxis - a National Trainee Research Collaborative delivered investigation.

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence relating to the management of epistaxis severe enough to require admission to a hospital. Previous studies of interventions for epistaxis have suffered from small sample sizes. They lacked the power to allow analysis of the effect of an intervention on epistaxis control that is independent of the condition severity or additional interventions given. To determine the effect of specialist treatments on the successful management of severe epistaxis METHODOLOGY: Secondary analysis of data collected from a national multi-centre audit of patients with epistaxis over 30 days in 2016. Data were entered prospectively, and patients were followed up for 30 days following hospital discharge. 1402 adults admitted for inpatient management of epistaxis were identified in 113 participating UK hospitals, with data entered prospectively during the 30-day audit window. Exposure variables assessed included treatment instigated at first ENT review, intervention strategy during hospitalization, disease factors (e.g. severity), patient risk factors (e.g. co-morbidities, medications) and treatment factors (grade of doctor, therapies initiated during hospital stay). Main Outcomes include treatment time (time from first ENT review to time haemostasis was achieved and patient was safe for hospital discharge) and 30-day hospital readmission rate. 834 patients had sufficient data for inclusion. Patients who did not receive nasal cautery at first specialist review had a treatment time greater than double the time of those who were cauterised: Adjusted ratio (aR) 2.5 (95% CI 1.7-3.3), after controlling for age, bleeding severity, and whether they received a nasal pack or not. Only 30% of patients received management that complied with new national guidance, but those that did were 87% more likely to be achieve haemostasis before those that did not, even after controlling for bleeding severity. Type of treatment, whether initial intervention or management strategy, did not affect 30-day re-attendance. Analysis of national audit data suggest that cautery at first specialist review, and management according to national guidance can reduce hospital treatment times without compromising 30-day re-attendance. Future work should investigate why early nasal cautery is infrequently used, and how service delivery can be optimised to allow widespread implementation of evidence-based management for epistaxis.

BNTRC: British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome

Introduction: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare but potentially devastating condition caused by compression of the cauda equina nerve roots. The clinical syndrome can include bilateral sciatica, saddle anaesthesia, bladder, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. The disabling nature of these symptoms has significant medical, social, and legal implications. Guidelines for the investigation and management of CES are based on evidence from small retrospective case series that include a range of presentations. Outcomes for those presenting with established loss of function may not be comparable to those with incipient symptoms. Arrangements for emergency imaging, patient transfer to specialist spinal units, and techniques for decompression also vary and could lead to differences in outcomes. Aims: This study aims to provide evidence for appropriate investigation and management of CES through: ascertaining the incidence of CES describing the clinical and radiological features of patients who are treated for CES establishing current practice in timing of investigations and choice of management of CES determining patient outcome and service usage following CES diagnosis Patients All patients over 18 years old treated for CES in a UK or Irish neurosurgical or orthopaedic spinal unit will be included. Patients will be identified via emergency admissions, and case ascertainment will be checked using coding records. Comparator: Outcomes and management will be stratified by presenting features and timing and type of surgical intervention. Outcome: Patient outcome will be assessed using validated patient reported outcome measures for back pain, leg pain, bladder, bowel, and sexual function. Health care services used over the following year will be recorded. Study design: This is a prospective cohort study with patients identified on admission to a spinal unit. Patients will be asked to consent for use of their data, contact for follow up assessments, and data linkage with existing NHS and surgical registries.