Search

Objective To systematically review preoperative and intraoperative Anastomotic Leak Prediction Scores (ALPS) and validation studies to evaluate performance and utility in surgical decision-making. Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication of colorectal surgery. Individualised leak risk could guide anastomosis and/or diverting stoma.Methods Systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases, 30 October 2020, identified existing ALPS and validation studies. All records including >1 risk factor, used to develop new, or to validate existing models for preoperative or intraoperative use to predict colorectal AL, were selected. Data extraction followed CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies guidelines. Models were assessed for applicability for surgical decision-making and risk of bias using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool.Results 34 studies were identified containing 31 individual ALPS (12 colonic/colorectal, 19 rectal) and 6 papers with validation studies only. Development dataset patient populations were heterogeneous in terms of numbers, indication for surgery, urgency and stoma inclusion. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Definitions and timeframe for AL were available in only 22 and 11 ALPS, respectively. 26/31 studies used some form of multivariable logistic regression in their modelling. Models included 3–33 individual predictors. 27/31 studies reported model discrimination performance but just 18/31 reported calibration. 15/31 ALPS were reported with external validation, 9/31 with internal validation alone and 4 published without any validation. 27/31 ALPS and every validation study were scored high risk of bias in model analysis.Conclusions Poor reporting practices and methodological shortcomings limit wider adoption of published ALPS. Several models appear to perform well in discriminating patients at highest AL risk but all raise concerns over risk of bias, and nearly all over wider applicability. Large-scale, precisely reported external validation studies are required.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020164804.

Introduction Rectal cancer is common with a 60% 5-year survival rate. Treatment usually involves surgery with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy. Sphincter saving curative treatment can result in debilitating changes to bowel function known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). There are currently no clear guidelines on the management of LARS with only limited evidence for different treatment modalities.Methods and analysis Patients who have undergone an anterior resection for rectal cancer in the last 10 years will be approached for the study. The feasibility trial will take place in four centres with a 9-month recruitment window and 12 months follow-up period. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of recruitment to the POLARiS trial which will be achieved through assessment of recruitment, retainment and follow-up rates as well as the prevalence of major LARS.Feasibility outcomes will be analysed descriptively through the estimation of proportions with confidence intervals. Longitudinal patient reported outcome measures will be analysed according to scoring manuals and presented descriptively with reporting graphically over time.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Wales REC1; Reference 22/WA/0025. The feasibility study is in the process of set up. The results of the feasibility trial will feed into the design of an expanded, international trial.Trial registration number CT05319054.

Introduction: A functioning voice is essential for normal human communication. A good voice requires two moving vocal folds; if one fold is paralysed (unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP)) people suffer from a breathy, weak voice that tires easily and is unable to function normally. UVFP can also result in choking and breathlessness. Current treatment for adults with UVFP is speech therapy to stimulate recovery of vocal fold (VF) motion or function and/or injection of the paralysed VF with a material to move it into a more favourable position for the functioning VF to close against. When these therapies are unsuccessful, or only provide temporary relief, surgery is offered. Two available surgical techniques are: (1) surgical medialisation; placing an implant near the paralysed VF to move it to the middle (thyroplasty) and/or repositioning the cartilage (arytenoid adduction) or (2) restoring the nerve supply to the VF (laryngeal reinnervation). Currently there is limited evidence to determine which surgery should be offered to adults with UVFP., Methods and Analysis: A feasibility study to test the practicality of running a multicentre, randomised clinical trial of surgery for UVFP, including: (1) a qualitative study to understand the recruitment process and how it operates in clinical centres and (2) a small randomised trial of 30 participants recruited at 3 UK sites comparing non-selective laryngeal reinnervation to type I thyroplasty. Participants will be followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome focuses on recruitment and retention, with secondary outcomes covering voice, swallowing and quality of life., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was received from National Research Ethics Service-Committee Bromley (reference 11/LO/0583). In addition to dissemination of results through presentation and publication of peer-reviewed articles, results will be shared with key clinician and patient groups required to develop the future large-scale randomised controlled trial., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN90201732; 16 December 2015., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)