Search

ObjectivesThe effective implementation of a fast-changing healthcare delivery innovation, such as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), into a healthcare system, can be affected (both positively and negatively) by external contextual factors. As part of a wider project investigating ways to optimise the implementation of RAS, this qualitative study aimed to uncover current issues of RAS and predictions about the future of robotic surgery. We refer to ‘current issues’ as the topical and salient challenges and opportunities related to the introduction of RAS in the UK healthcare system, from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the delivery and implementation of RAS.DesignSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to summarise salient issues that were articulated by the participants.Setting and participantsThe interview sample (n=35) comprised surgeons, wider theatre staff and other relevant personnel involved in the introduction and delivery of RAS services across the UK, including service managers and policymakers/commissioners. Two focus groups were also conducted with surgical trainees (n=7) and members of the public (n=8), respectively.ResultsThe results revealed a largely positive attitude towards the introduction of RAS technology and an expectation of continued rapid expansion. Areas perceived to be particularly pertinent and requiring ongoing attention were also highlighted, including the need to achieve improved quality control, expertise quantification and training issues and the need to educate the public. Issues of centralisation, service organisation and equity of access were also emphasised.ConclusionsOur study has highlighted a range of issues perceived to be particularly pertinent to the current and future provision of RAS which should be addressed. The areas outlined can enable healthcare managers and surgeons to plan for the adoption and/or expansion of RAS services.

IntroductionIncisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of abdominal surgery affecting between 10% and 20% of patients and is associated with significant morbidity along with cost to the National Health Service. With high recurrence rates following repair, focus must be on prevention of IH rather than cure. There is an increasing evidence that patients at high risk of developing IH may benefit from prophylactic mesh placement during their index operation. With recent controversy surrounding the use of mesh in the UK, however, there is little understanding of whether this intervention would be acceptable to patients.Methods and analysisINVITE is a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study to explore patient perceptions of the use of mesh as prophylaxis to prevent IH. Patients with and without IH who have undergone colorectal surgery between 2017 and 2020 in a single UK health-board will be approached to participate. 120 participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire and a subgroup of 24 participants will be invited to semistructured interviews. The primary outcome is to assess the acceptability of prophylactic mesh to patients. Secondary outcomes include understanding patients’ knowledge of IH, and factors that may influence or alter the acceptability of mesh. Questionnaires have been developed using a 5-point Likert scale to allow quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis of interviews will be conducted using NVivo software and thematic analysis. Data will be presented using the Journal Article Reporting Standards for mixed-methods research.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by REC Wales (22/PR/0678), and the study is currently in setup. All participants will be required to provide informed consent prior to their participation in the study. We plan to report the results of the study in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals and via presentations at scientific meetings. Results from this study will aid the design of interventional trials using prophylactic mesh.Trial registration numberNCT05384600.

Introduction Rectal cancer affects more than 600 patients per year in Wales, with a 5-year survival rate of around 60%. A recent report demonstrated that 19% of patients with bowel cancer had difficulty controlling their bowels after surgery, and these patients were twice as likely to report lower quality of life than those who had control. Nearly all patients will experience bowel dysfunction initially following surgery and up to 25% will experience severe bowel dysfunction on a long-term basis. The aim of this study is to test the feasibility of introducing a simple intervention in an attempt to improve bowel function following surgery for rectal cancer. We propose the introduction of an educational session from specialist nurses and physiotherapists prior to surgery and a subsequent physiotherapy programme for 3 months to teach patients how to strengthen their pelvic floor. Methods and analysis All patients with rectal cancer planned to receive an anterior resection will be approached for the study. The study will take place in three centres over 12 months, and we expect to recruit 40 patients. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of eligible patients approached who consent to and attend the educational session. The secondary outcomes include patient compliance to the pelvic floor rehabilitation programme (assessed by patient paper or electronic diary), the acceptability of the intervention to the patient (assessed using qualitative interviews) and preoperative and postoperative pelvic floor tone (assessed using the Oxford Grading System and the International Continence Society Grading System), patient bowel function and patient quality of life (assessed using validated questionnaires). Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was granted. This feasibility study is in progress. If patients find the intervention acceptable, the next stage would be a trial comparing outcomes after anterior resection in those who have and do not have physiotherapy. Trial registration number ISRCTN77383505; Pre-results.

IntroductionA defunctioning ileostomy is often formed during rectal cancer surgery to reduce the potentially fatal sequelae of anastomotic leak. Once the ileostomy is closed and bowel continuity restored, many patients can suffer poor bowel function, that is, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). It has been suggested that delay to closure can increase incidence of LARS which is known to significantly reduce quality of life. Despite this, within the UK, time to closure of ileostomy is not subject to national targets within the National Health Service and delay to closure exceeds 18 months in one-third of patients. Clinical factors, surgeon and patient preference or service pressures may all impact time to closure, yet to date no study has investigated this. The aim of this UK-wide study is to assess time to ileostomy closure and identify reasons for delays.Methods and analysisA UK-wide multicentre prospective snapshot study, together with retrospective analysis of ileostomy closure through The Dukes’ Club Research Collaborative including patients undergoing ileostomy closure in a 3-month period (April to June 2018) and all patients who underwent anterior resection and ileostomy formation over a historical 12-month period (2015). Time to closure and incidence of ‘non-closure’ will be calculated. Units will be surveyed to determine local clinical and management protocols and barriers to timely closure. Multivariate linear regression analysis will be used to determine factors significantly associated with delay to ileostomy closure.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority. Study results will be submitted for presentation at international conferences and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be presented to and discussed with the patient and public representatives and relevant national bodies to facilitate the development of consensus guidelines on optimum treatment pathways.

ObjectivesIncisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The ‘Hughes Repair’ combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.Design and settingA feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.ParticipantsPatients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.InterventionsComparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.Primary and secondary outcomesA 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.ResultsA total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.ConclusionsThe feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.Trial registration numberISRCTN 25616490.