Search

Background The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards. Methods One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval. Results Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as ‘research only’ was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively). Conclusion This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.

BackgroundInduction programmes aim to ease the transition from medical student to doctor. The interim foundation year 1 (FiY1) placement, introduced in the first COVID-19 wave, provided experience in advance of the Foundation Year 1 (FY1) start in August; providing more time and enhanced responsibilities than traditional induction programmes. This study examines the effects of the FiY1 placement on anxiety levels and preparedness for FY1.MethodsThis was a descriptive cross-sectional study using data from four cohorts of FY1s who completed the online National FY1 induction survey from 2017 to 2020 (n = 4766). Questions evaluated self-reported preparedness and anxiety levels. Differences in preparedness and anxiety levels of FiY1 and non-FiY1 participants in 2020, and the 2017–2019 participants (non-FiY1 controls), were evaluated.ResultsFiY1s in 2020 reported higher self-reported preparedness (79%) than non-FiY1s (54%) in 2020 (p = ConclusionTime spent in an FiY1 role is associated with an increase in self-perceptions of preparedness and a reduction in anxiety. These data indicate that time spent in an FiY1 role may have utility in further improving the transition period from medical school to FY1.

ObjectiveTo review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds).DesignA qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales.SettingNHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK.ParticipantsBetween December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review.ResultsFrom the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure’s novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon’s experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included.ConclusionsNearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients’ and clinicians’ views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.One of the best ways to prove that a new medicine really works is to use a scientific test called a ‘placebo-controlled trial’. In this type of test, half of the participants are given a new pill and the other half are given a ‘placebo’, which is a dummy pill (usually a sugar pill) that is made to taste and look the same as the active pill, but has no active ingredients. The results are then compared. Just like medicines, new surgical procedures need to be tested to show that they are safe and benefit patients. Ideally, they would also be tested using the ‘placebo-controlled trial’ approach, but asking patients to have ‘dummy’ surgery is not the same as asking people to take a dummy pill. Placebo surgery raises lots of ethics questions and is controversial. As it is controversial, guidelines are needed to recommend when placebo surgery studies can be used (if at all) and what special considerations need to be taken into account. Our research team was commissioned to develop these guidelines.We summarised, to the best of our knowledge, all previous research that had used placebo surgery and reviewed all the ethics literature on this topic. We also looked at the latest scientific understanding of how placebos work. We then held a workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. This involved an international team of patients, surgeons, researchers, ethicists, psychologists, physiologists and funders. We published the guidelines [i.e. the ASPIRE (Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations) guidelines] in an influential medical journal and also wrote several other publications. This report provides a slightly more detailed version of our findings and recommendations.The guidelines will help researchers and doctors know when, and how, to best design placebo surgery studies in the future.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of type of bariatric surgery on pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This is a national prospective observational study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). Data collection was undertaken in 200 consultant-led NHS maternity units between November 2011 and October 2012 (gastric banding), and April 2014 and March 2016 (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy). Participants were pregnant women following gastric banding (n = 127), gastric bypass (n = 134) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 29). Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear and linear mixed models. Maternal outcomes included gestational weight gain, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, anaemia, surgical complications. Perinatal outcomes included birthweight, small/large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), preterm birth, stillbirth. RESULTS: Maternal: Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of anaemia compared with gastric bypass (banding (16 %) vs bypass (39 %): p = 0.002, sleeve (21 %) vs bypass: p = 0.04). Gestational diabetes risk was lower after gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (7 % vs 16 %, p = 0.03) despite women with banding having significantly greater weight at booking as well as gestational weight gain. Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of surgical complications than after gastric bypass (banding (0.9 %) vs bypass (11.4 %): p = 0.03, sleeve (0.0 %) vs bypass: p = 0.06). Perinatal: Infants born to mothers after gastric banding had a higher birthweight than those born to mothers after gastric bypass (mean difference = 260 g (125-395), p < 0.001). Infants were more likely to be LGA if their mothers had gastric banding compared with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy (banding (21 %) vs bypass (5 %): p = 0.006; banding vs sleeve (3 %): p = 0.03). Risk of preterm birth was higher in women with gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (13 % vs 8 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women planning bariatric surgery should be counselled regarding the differing impacts of different types of procedure on any future pregnancy. Pre-existing gastric bypass is associated with higher rates of potentially serious surgical complications during pregnancy.

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endoscopic procedure used to treat obesity-related comorbidities. Whilst its use is increasing in clinical practice, there is comparatively little understanding about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of ESG in the context of guidelines for evaluating innovative surgical devices and procedures. Systematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting ESG insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, proceduralist expertise, technique description and outcome reporting. Searches identified 2289 abstracts; 37 full-text papers were included (one prospective comparative cohort study, 16 retrospective cohort studies, 17 prospective cohort studies and three case reports). No randomized trials were identified. Eighteen studies were conducted prospectively. The number of patients in the included studies ranged from 1 to 1000. The lower BMI limit ranged from 27 to 35 kg/m2. Research approvals were reported in 26 studies. Two studies reported on the learning curve. All studies reported some aspect of technical implementation, but many variations were noted. Suturing device used and suture pattern were the most commonly reported aspects (32 studies). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 24 months, but was 12 months or less in 28 studies. Forty-eight different outcomes were reported across all studies. The literature on ESG has demonstrated some progression in reporting and analysis and the next stage of assessment should be a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate efficacy.

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.

Summary Interventions from randomised controlled trials can only be replicated if they are reported in sufficient detail. The results of trials can only be confidently interpreted if the delivery of the intervention was systematic and the protocol adhered to. We systematically reviewed trials of anaesthetic interventions published in 12 journals from January 2016 to September 2019. We assessed the detail with which interventions were reported, using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non‐pharmacological treatments. We analysed 162 interventions reported by 78 trials in 18,675 participants. Detail sufficiently precise to replicate the intervention was reported for 111 (69%) interventions. Intervention standardisation was reported for 135 (83%) out of the 162 interventions, and protocol adherence was reported for 20 (12%) interventions. Sixty (77%) out of the 78 trials reported the administrative context in which interventions were delivered and 36 (46%) trials detailed the expertise of the practitioners. We conclude that bespoke reporting tools should be developed for anaesthetic interventions and interventions in other areas such as critical care.

ObjectiveOutcome selection and reporting in studies of novel surgical procedures and devices lacks standardisation, hindering safe and effective evaluation. A core outcome set (COS) to measure and report in all studies of surgical innovation is needed. We explored outcomes in a specific sample of innovative surgical device case studies to identify outcome domains specifically relevant to innovation to inform the development of a COS.DesignA targeted review of 11 purposive selected case studies of innovative surgical devices.MethodsElectronic database searches in PubMed (July 2018) identified publications reporting the introduction and evaluation of each device. Outcomes were extracted and categorised into domains until no new domains were conceptualised. Outcomes specifically relevant to evaluating innovation were further scrutinised.Results112 relevant publications were identified, and 5926 outcomes extracted. Heterogeneity in study type, outcome selection and reporting was observed across surgical devices. Categorisation of outcomes was performed for 2689 (45.4%) outcomes into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of innovation (n=66; 2.5%) were further categorised as surgeon/operator experience (n=40; 1.5%), unanticipated events (n=15, 0.6%) and modifications (n=11; 0.4%).ConclusionOutcome domains unique to evaluating innovative surgical devices have been identified. Findings have been combined with multiple other data sources relevant to the evaluation of surgical innovation to inform the development of a COS to measure and report in all studies evaluating novel surgical procedures/devices.

ObjectivesThere is emerging use of artificial intelligence (AI) models to aid diagnostic imaging. This review examined and critically appraised the application of AI models to identify surgical pathology from radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesSystematic database searches (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were performed. Date limitations (January 2012 to July 2021) were applied.Eligibility criteriaPrimary research studies were considered for eligibility using the PIRT (participants, index test(s), reference standard and target condition) framework. Only publications in the English language were eligible for inclusion in the review.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics, descriptions of AI models and outcomes assessing diagnostic performance were extracted by independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2)).ResultsFifteen retrospective studies were included. Studies were diverse in surgical specialty, the intention of the AI applications and the models used. AI training and test sets comprised a median of 130 (range: 5–2440) and 37 (range: 10–1045) patients, respectively. Diagnostic performance of models varied (range: 70%–95% sensitivity, 53%–98% specificity). Only four studies compared the AI model with human performance. Reporting of studies was unstandardised and often lacking in detail. Most studies (n=14) were judged as having overall high risk of bias with concerns regarding applicability.ConclusionsAI application in this field is diverse. Adherence to reporting guidelines is warranted. With finite healthcare resources, future endeavours may benefit from targeting areas where radiological expertise is in high demand to provide greater efficiency in clinical care. Translation to clinical practice and adoption of a multidisciplinary approach should be of high priority.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237249.

ObjectiveTo investigate women’s experiences of having a birth assisted by the Odon Device (an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth) and participation in intrapartum research.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews and observations undertaken in the context of case study work embedded in the ASSIST feasibility study.SettingA tertiary referral National Health Service (NHS) maternity unit in the Southwest of England, between 8 October 2018 and 26 January 2019.ParticipantsEight women, four operators and 11 midwives participated with eight observations of the assisted vaginal birth, eight interviews with women in the postnatal period, 39 interviews/reflections with operators and 19 interviews with midwives. Women in the case study research were recruited from participants in the main ASSIST Study.InterventionThe Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth.ResultsThirty-nine case studies were undertaken. Triangulation of data sources (participant observation, interviews with women, operators and midwives) enabled the exploration of women’s experiences of the Odon Device and recruitment in the intrapartum trial. Experiences were overwhelmingly positive. Women were motivated to take part by a wish for a kinder birth, and because they perceived both the recruitment and research processes (including observation) to be highly acceptable, regardless of whether the Odon-assisted birth was successful or not.ConclusionsInterviews and observations from multiple stakeholders enabled insight into women’s experiences of an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. Applying these qualitative methods more broadly may illuminate perspectives of key stakeholders in future intrapartum intervention research and beyond.Trial registration numberISRCTN10203171; ASSIST Study registration; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10203171.

IntroductionThe development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of ‘case studies’ of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported.Methods and analysisThis qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

Background Robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) has seen increasing adoption into clinical practice despite a lack of evidence to demonstrate superiority over conventional methods. Consistency in outcome selection, definition and reporting between studies is required for effective evidence synthesis and to minimise research waste. The aim of this study was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the outcomes reported in studies of RC. This work will inform the need for a core outcome set (COS). Method Systematic searches identified all published studies reporting RC, from inception to February 2020. Outcomes reported in each manuscript were recorded verbatim and categorised into domains. All outcomes were coded in duplicate. Where reported, the follow up period of each study was documented. Results Of 1425 abstracts screened, ninety studies met the criteria for inclusion. A total of 878 outcomes were reported. Each study included a median of 8 outcomes (range 3-26). Outcome selection was heterogeneous, with those relating to technical/operative factors (n = 383, 88 studies), complications (n = 245, 81 studies) and health economics (n = 139, 72 studies) used most frequently. No single outcome, or outcome domain, was reported in all studies. Only 30 studies reported a follow-up period, which ranged from 14 days to 46 months. In thirteen, the follow-up was for less than or equal to one month. Conclusions We identified significant heterogeneity in the selection and reporting of outcomes in studies of RC and support calls for standardisation and development of a COS.

Aim The General Medical Council (GMC) requires all newly qualified doctors to be competent in certain surgical skills, including the provision of basic wound closure. Yet there is a profound lack of undergraduate competence in, and exposure to, basic surgical skills such as wound closure. The Surgical Skills Day (SSD) aimed to provide medical students with additional skills training. Method Student self-assessment and instructors’ assessment forms were completed prior to and following a workshop on basic wound closure skills. Paired t-tests were used to statistically compare the two pre- and post-instruction data sets. Results A total of 46 students attended the SSD; 29 consented to the skills assessment. 100% (n = 29) self-reported improved competency in at least one of the skills following tuition (p Conclusions Current clinical teaching in basic suturing is unsuitable for long term retention. SSDs can improve skills acquisition and elevate student confidence. This data builds on our previous work by documenting the high efficacy in skills acquisition as a result of SSD tuition. We recommend that SSDs be integrated into medical school curricula in order to address shortcomings in current undergraduate programmes.

Older adults undergoing emergency abdominal surgery have significantly poorer outcomes than younger adults. For those who survive, the level of care required on discharge from hospital is unknown and such information could guide decision-making. The ELF (Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty) study aimed to determine whether preoperative frailty in older adults was associated with increased dependence at the time of discharge.The ELF study was a UK-wide multicentre prospective cohort study of older patients (65 years or more) undergoing emergency laparotomy during March and June 2017. The objective was to establish whether preoperative frailty was associated with increased care level at discharge compared with preoperative care level. The analysis used a multilevel logistic regression adjusted for preadmission frailty, patient age, sex and care level.A total of 934 patients were included from 49 hospitals. Mean(s.d.) age was 76·2(6·8) years, with 57·6 per cent women; 20·2 per cent were frail. Some 37·4 per cent of older adults had an increased care level at discharge. Increasing frailty was associated with increased discharge care level, with greater predictive power than age. The adjusted odds ratio for an increase in care level was 4·48 (95 per cent c.i. 2·03 to 9·91) for apparently vulnerable patients (Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) 4), 5·94 (2·54 to 13·90) for those mildly frail (CFS 5) and 7·88 (2·97 to 20·79) for those moderately or severely frail (CFS 6 or 7), compared with patients who were fit.Over 37 per cent of older adults undergoing emergency laparotomy required increased care at discharge. Frailty scoring was a significant predictor, and should be integrated into all acute surgical units to aid shared decision-making and discharge planning.Los adultos mayores sometidos a cirugía abdominal de urgencia tienen resultados significativamente peores que los adultos jóvenes. Para aquellos pacientes que sobreviven, el nivel de atención que requieren tras el alta hospitalaria se desconoce y esta información podría servir de guía en la toma de decisiones. El estudio ELF (Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty) tenía como objetivo determinar si la fragilidad preoperatoria en adultos mayores se asociaba con un aumento de la dependencia en el momento del alta. MÉTODOS: El estudio ELF era un estudio multicéntrico extenso efectuado en el Reino Unido (n = 49) que incluyó una cohorte prospectiva de 934 pacientes mayores ( 65 años) sometidos a laparotomía de urgencia durante marzo-junio de 2017. El objetivo fue establecer si la fragilidad preoperatoria aumentaba el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta en comparación con el nivel de asistencia preoperatorio. Para el análisis se utilizó una regresión logística multinivel ajustada a características previas al ingreso: fragilidad, edad del paciente, género, y nivel de asistencia.La edad media de los pacientes fue 76,2 años (DE = 6,83), con un 57% de mujeres, un 20,2% de pacientes frágiles y un 37,4% de adultos mayores que presentaron un aumento en el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta. Un aumento de la fragilidad se asoció con un incremento en el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta (y mayor poder predictivo que la edad). La razón de oportunidades (odds ratio, OR) ajustada por el aumento del nivel de asistencia fue 4,48 (i.c. del 95% 2,03-9,91) para pacientes aparentemente vulnerables (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS 4); 5,94 (i.c. del 95% 2,54-13,90) para aquellos ligeramente frágiles (CFS 5); y 7,88 (i.c. del 95% 2,97-20,79) para aquellos con fragilidad moderada o grave (CFS 6 and 7) en comparación con pacientes en buenas condiciones. CONCLUSIÓN: Este es el primer estudio que documenta que más del 37% de adultos mayores sometidos a laparotomía de urgencia precisaron un aumento en el nivel de asistencia en el momento del alta. La evaluación de la fragilidad debería integrarse en todas las unidades quirúrgicas de agudos para ayudar a compartir la toma de decisiones y los planes de tratamiento.

ObjectivesTo describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation.Design(1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a ‘long list’ of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study.SettingTwo secondary care surgical centres in England.ParticipantsPatients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses.Outcome measuresSuccessful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study.Results59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma.ConclusionsThis study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia.Trial registration numberISRCTN17573805.

ObjectiveWhen novel devices are used ‘in human’ for the first time, their optimal use is uncertain because clinicians only have experience from preclinical studies. This study aimed to investigate factors that might optimise use of the Odon Device for assisted vaginal birth.DesignWe undertook qualitative case studies within the ASSIST Study, a feasibility study of the Odon Device. Each ‘case’ was defined as one use of the device and included at least one of the following: observation of the attempted assisted birth, and an interview with the obstetrician, midwife or woman. Data collection and thematic analysis ran iteratively and in parallel.SettingTertiary referral National Health Service maternity unit in the Southwest of England.ParticipantsWomen requiring a clinically indicated assisted vaginal birth.InterventionThe Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDetermining the optimal device technique, device design and defining clinical parameters for use.ResultsThirty-nine cases involving an attempted Odon-assisted birth were included in this study, of which 19 resulted in a successful birth with the device. Factors that improved use included optimisation of device technique, device design and clinical parameters for use. Technique adaptations included: applying the device during, rather than between, contractions; having a flexible approach to the application angle; and deflating the air cuff sooner than originally proposed. Three design modifications were proposed involving the deflation button and sleeve. Although use of the device was found to be appropriate in all fetal positions, it was considered contraindicated when the fetal station was at the ischial spines.ConclusionsCase study methodology facilitated the acquisition of rapid insights into device function in clinical practice, providing key insights regarding use, design and key clinical parameters for success. This methodology should be considered whenever innovative devices are introduced into clinical practice.Trial registration numberISRCTN10203171.

ObjectivesCOVID-19 presents a risk of infection and transmission for operating theatre teams. Guidelines to protect patients and staff emerged and changed rapidly based on expert opinion and limited evidence. This paper presents the experiences and innovations developed by international surgical teams during the early stages of the pandemic to attempt to mitigate risk.DesignIn-depth, semistructured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using methods of constant comparison.Participants43 participants, including surgeons from a range of specialties (primarily general surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic and ophthalmology), anaesthetists and those in nursing roles.SettingThe UK, Italy, Spain, the USA, China and New Zealand between March and May 2020.ResultsSurgical teams sought to mitigate COVID-19 risks by modifying their current practice with an abundance of strategies and innovations. Communication and teamwork played an integral role in how teams adapted, although participants reflected on the challenges of having to improvise in real time. Uncertainties remained about optimal surgical practice and there were significant tensions where teams were forced to balance what was best for patients while contemplating their own safety.ConclusionsThe perceptions of risks during a pandemic such as COVID-19 can be complex and context dependent. Management of these risks in surgery must be driven by evidence‐based practice resulting from a pragmatic and novel approach to collation of global evidence. The context of surgery has changed dramatically, and surgical teams have developed a plethora of innovations. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence to inform surgical practice that optimises the safety of both patients and healthcare professionals as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds.

Objective To explore optimum use of the Odon Device by establishing the optimal device design, describing the ‘usual’ steps for use and setting clinical parameters for device use. Design Qualitative case study methodology was embedded in the ASSIST Study – a feasibility study of the Odon Device. Setting Central Delivery Suite, North Bristol NHS Trust, UK. Population Women who required a clinically indicated assisted vaginal birth. Methods Each case was determined by the single use of the Odon Device and could contain data from one or more of the following: formal observation of the Odon assisted birth, an interview with obstetricians, midwives or women involved in an Odon assisted birth. Data collection and analysis ran iteratively and in parallel enabling rapid dissemination of findings. Main outcome measures Determining the optimal steps for device use, recommendations for optimal device design and defining clinical parameters for device use. Results Optimal steps included applying the device during rather than between contractions, having a flexible approach to the application angle and deflating the air cuff sooner than originally proposed. Three design modifications were proposed. The device can be used under local or regional anaesthetic and is successful with all vertex presentations. It is not successful at assisting birth when the vertex is at station spines. Conclusions Case study methodology facilitated rapid insight into optimum device design, device use and key clinical parameter for successful use. This methodology should be considered whenever innovative devices are introduced to clinical trials and settings.

Introduction Diagnosing appendicitis remains challenging, despite being the most common surgical emergency. We conducted a single-centre mixed method quality improvement project to assess the validity of a diagnostic algorithm for appendicitis and the diagnostic impact of increasing cross-sectional imaging during the Covid-19 pandemic. Method Adult histology reports and preoperative imaging data were retrospectively retrieved for patients operated on between 1/7/19-31/12/19 (‘baseline data’) and an appendicitis diagnostic algorithm was developed. Imaging and risk stratification data were prospectively collected, as part of a national audit, between 20/03/30-23/6/20 for all adult appendicitis patients. This data was used to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed diagnostic algorithm. Use of imaging and histological diagnoses was compared between datasets. Results 194 patients were included across both time periods. The rate of cross-sectional imaging increased from 36.6% to 76% and the normal appendicectomy rate (NAR) decreased from 5.22% to 2.4%. Thirty-six percent of patients in the latter time period were not managed in accordance with the proposed algorithm. The proposed diagnostic algorithm may have prevented up to 87.5% of normal appendicectomies across both time periods. Conclusions Increasing cross-sectional imaging was associated with a decrease in the NAR. The use of the proposed diagnostic algorithm may have reduced the NAR further.

Background Innovation in surgery is growing. The rigour of reporting of innovation must therefore be examined to ensure evaluations are thorough and transparent. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessmemt, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework was developed in 2009 to help researchers evaluate innovative procedures. However, it is not known whether the IDEAL principles have been adopted into the reporting of robotic surgery. The aim of this study is to identify and summarise published literature for robotically assisted anti-reflux surgery, to understand whether evaluations are being performed in a robust way. Methods Systematic literature searches were undertaken to identify studies relating to robotic anti-reflux surgery. All primary research studies pertaining to robotically-assisted surgery for adults with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were included. Studies examining multiple interventions, where the outcomes could not be separated, were excluded. Data will be doubly extracted using tailored online forms. Data extraction themes include: study characteristics, technique description and evolution, governance/ethical factors and outcome reporting. Data will be synthesised into tables and summarised in a narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis will not be performed as we aim to examine reporting, rather than the efficacy of robotically-assisted anti-reflux surgery. Results 824 abstracts were identified, of which 80 were included for full text review. Summarised data will be used to propose a standard of reporting which will inform future work in the field. Conclusion The findings will feed in to the other six arms of RoboSurg to examine reporting in robotic upper gastrointestinal surgery more generally.

Introduction The process of innovation in the field of surgery has largely resulted in improved patient outcomes. However, the uncertainty around the potential benefits and harms of innovative procedures mean that both research governance and ethics are important considerations for those who innovate. Though the need for ethical approval is standardised, other patient safeguards are surgeon and procedure dependent, such as the information provided during the consent procedure. It is currently unknown how ethical considerations in innovative surgery have been reported. This systematic review aims to evaluate the reporting of governance arrangements and ethical safeguards applied to innovative surgical procedures, using a case study of robotic upper gastrointestinal surgery. Methods The RoboSurg collaboration is conducting a set of systematic reviews to evaluate reports of innovative robotic surgical procedures including: pancreatectomies, gastrectomies, Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses, oesophagectomies, liver resections, cholecystectomies and anti-reflux operations. Databases were searched in April 2020 using relevant search terms including ‘oesophagectomy’ and ‘robotics’. Data extracted include details of approvals from Institutional Review Boards, ethics committees and clinical effectiveness groups, a priori study registration, and patient consent. Results Interim results for the reporting of governance arrangements and ethical safeguards from studies detailing robotic oesophagectomies will be presented. The search yielded 1908 abstracts for screening, of which 101 were included. The proportion of studies reporting on each ethical safeguard for patients undergoing this innovative procedure will be described and summarised. Conclusion This review will evaluate how governance and ethical safeguards in studies of innovative surgical procedures have been reported.

Highlights • Reporting standards of device RCTs are vital, ensuring correct implementation. • Assisted vaginal birth interventions are complex and use devices to achieve birth. • Reporting standards of assisted vaginal birth trials lack detail or clarity. • Clearer reporting standards guidelines must be produced, ensuring transparent findings., Objective Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a complex intervention involving medical devices, comprising multiple components. This complexity creates difficulties when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in terms of describing, standardising and monitoring the intervention, and accounting for differing clinician expertise. This review examines the reporting standards of complex interventions involving a medical device, in the context of AVB RCTs. Study design Searches were undertaken from the start of indexing to March 2021, and limited to RCTs, feasibility and pilot studies including at least one device for AVB. RCTs were selected if they included participants having an AVB with any device, with or without a comparator group. Reporting details were assessed according to the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT), focusing on intervention descriptions, standardization, adherence and clinician expertise. Screening of abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Results Of 4098 abstracts and 83 full-text articles, 39 papers were included, investigating 80 interventions. Twenty-seven different named devices were identified. Intervention descriptions were provided in 20 (55%) papers with varying levels of detail and with only one covering the entire procedure. Standardization of interventions was mentioned in 25 papers (64%). Only eight (21%) papers reported any form of adherence to the intended procedure. Some data regarding expertise were reported in 25 (64%) papers. Conclusions Despite some compliance with reporting standards, there is a lack of detail regarding intervention description, standardization, adherence and expertise in RCTs of AVB. This creates difficulties in understanding how intervention delivery was intended and what actually occurred. Clearer guidelines for the reporting of invasive procedures and devices are required.

IntroductionThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies as a diagnostic aid in healthcare is increasing. Benefits include applications to improve health systems, such as rapid and accurate interpretation of medical images. This may improve the performance of diagnostic, prognostic and management decisions. While a large amount of work has been undertaken discussing the role of AI little is understood regarding the performance of such applications in the clinical setting. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms to identify disease from cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted on Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. Primary studies where AI-based technologies have been used as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity will be included. Diagnostic accuracy of AI models, including reported sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve will be examined and compared with standard practice. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Findings will be reported according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required as primary data will not be collected. The results will inform further research studies in this field. Findings will be disseminated at relevant conferences, on social media and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237249.

Objectives This study aimed to explore variations in the provision of integrated academic surgical training across the UK. Design This is an online cross-sectional survey (consisting of 44 items with a range of free-text, binomial and 5-point Likert scale responses) developed by the Association of Surgeons in Training. Setting A self-reported survey instrument was distributed to academic surgical trainees across the UK (n=276). Participants 143 (51.9%) responses were received (81% male, median age: 34 years), spanning all UK regions and surgical specialties. Of the 143 trainees, 29 were core trainees (20.3%), 99 were specialty trainees (69.2%) and 15 (10.5%) described themselves as research fellows. Results The structure of academic training varied considerably, with under a third of trainees receiving guaranteed protected time for research. Despite this, however, 53.1% of the respondents reported to be satisfied with how their academic training was organised. Covering clinical duties during academic time occurred commonly (72.7%). Although most trainees (n=88, 61.5%) met with their academic supervisor at least once a month, six (4.2%) never had an academic supervisory meeting. Most trainees (n=90, 62.9%) occupied a full-time rota slot and only 9.1% (n=13) described their role as ‘supernumerary’. Although 58.7% (n=84) of the trainees were satisfied with their clinical competence, 37.8% (n=54) felt that clinical time focused more on service provision than the acquisition of technical skills. 58 (40.6%) had experienced some form of negative sentiment relating to their status as an academic trainee. Conclusions Integrated academic training presents unique challenges and opportunities within surgery. This survey has identified variation in the quality of current programmes, meaning that the future provision of integrated surgical academic training should be carefully considered.

IntroductionSurgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.Methods and analysisWe will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT10386621.

Background The Odon Device™ is a new device for assisted vaginal birth that employs an air cuff around the fetal head for traction. Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a vital health intervention that can result in better outcomes for mothers and their babies when complications arise in the second stage of labour. Unfortunately, instruments for AVB (forceps and ventouse) are often not used in settings where there is most clinical need often due to lack of training and resources, resulting in maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality which could have been prevented. This is often due to a lack of trained operators as well as difficulties in the sterilisation and maintenance of AVB devices. This novel, single use device has the potential to mitigate these difficulties as it is single use and is potentially simpler to use than forceps and ventouse. All the studies of the Odon Device to date (pre-clinical, preliminary developmental and clinical) suggest that the Odon Device does not present a higher risk to mothers or babies compared to current standard care, and recruitment to intrapartum research exploring the device is feasible and acceptable to women. The first study in which the Odon Device was used in clinically indicated conditions (the ASSIST Study) reported a lower efficacy than those reported with established devices. The reasons need to be explored, specifically focussing on learning curve, the technique of the doctors using this new device and potential modifications to device design. A follow-on clinical study to further investigate the efficacy and safety of the Odon Device in its indicated use, the ASSIST II Study, is therefore being undertaken. Methods The primary feasibility outcome is study feasibility (recruitment and retention rates) whilst the primary clinical outcome successful vaginal birth completed with the Odon Device. Key secondary feasibility outcomes include participant withdrawal, compliance in data collection and acceptability of the device to women and operators. Secondary clinical outcomes include maternal, neonatal and device outcomes. Safety data will be reviewed following every birth exploring maternal, neonatal and device risks. Using A’Hern approach for sample size calculation, we aim to recruit 104 women requiring an assisted vaginal birth for a recognised clinical indication. Assuming an AVB success rate of 65% or more, a one-sided alpha risk of 5% and power of 90%. Discussion The data from the ASSIST II Study will provide the information required regarding acceptability, recruitment, outcome data collection, device design, technique of device use and operator learning curve in order to design a future randomised controlled trial of the Odon Device versus current modes of assisted vaginal birth. Trial registration ISRCTN registration: 38829082 (prospectively registered July 26, 2019)

Worldwide, there are at least 230 million invasive procedures performed annually and most of us will undergo several in our lifetime. There is therefore a need for high-quality evidence to underpin this clinical area. Currently, however, there is no widely accepted definition of an invasive procedure and the terms ‘surgery’ and ‘interventional procedure’ are characterised inconsistently. We propose a definition for invasive procedures which addresses the limitations of those currently available. Our definition was developed from an analysis of the 3946 papers from the last decade. A preliminary definition was created based on existing definitions and applied to a variety of papers reporting all types of procedures. This definition was continuously updated and applied iteratively to all articles. The definition has three key components: (1) method of access to the body, (2) instrumentation and (3) requirement for operator skill. It therefore encapsulates all types of invasive procedure regardless of the method of access to the body (incision, natural orifice or percutaneous access), and is relevant whatever the clinical discipline (eg, obstetric, cardiac, dental, interventional cardiology or radiology). Crucially, the definition excludes medicinal products, except where their administration occurs within an invasive procedure (and thereby involves operator skill). The application of a universal definition of an invasive procedure will (1) inform the selection of relevant methods for study design, (2) streamline evidence synthesis and (3) improve research tracking, helping to identify evidence gaps and direct research funds.

Background Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is reported to be an innovative alternative to antireflux surgery for patients with gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease. Although used in practice, little is known about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of MSA and its introduction into clinical practice, in the context of guidelines (such as IDEAL) for evaluating innovative surgical devices. Methods Systematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting MSA insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, surgeon expertise, technique description and outcome reporting. Results Searches identified 587 abstracts; 39 full‐text papers were included (1 RCT 5 cohort, 3 case–control, 25 case series, 5 case reports). Twenty‐one followed US Food and Drug Administration eligibility criteria for MSA insertion. Twenty‐six documented that ethical approval was obtained. Two reported that participating surgeons received training in MSA; 18 provided information about how MSA insertion was performed, although techniques varied between studies. Follow‐up ranged from 4 weeks to 5 years; in 14 studies, it was less than 1 year. Conclusion Most studies on MSA lacked information about patient selection, governance, expertise, techniques and outcomes, or varied between studies. Currently, MSA is being used despite a lack of robust evidence for its effectiveness., This systematic review summarizes published evidence for a novel procedure, magnetic sphincter augmentation of the oesophagus, a treatment for gastro‐oesophageal reflux. It found limited governance arrangements, a lack of long‐term follow‐up and varied methods of device insertion. There is a need for improvement in the rigour with which innovative surgical procedures are evaluated. Ideally, this would comprise high‐quality RCTs and long‐term registries, to allow safe adoption of the device into clinical practice. Innovation in need for IDEAL investigation

Introduction Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) can markedly improve maternal and neonatal outcomes arising from complications in the second stage of labour. Historically, both forceps and ventouse devices have been used to assist birth; however, they are not without risk and are associated with complications, such as cephalohaematoma, retinal haemorrhage and perineal trauma. As new devices are developed to overcome the limitations of existing techniques, it is necessary to establish their efficacy and effectiveness within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A major challenge of evaluating complex interventions (ie, invasive procedures/devices used to assist vaginal birth) is ensuring they are delivered as intended. It can be difficult to standardise intervention delivery and monitor fidelity, and account for the varying expertise of clinicians (accoucher expertise). This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review aiming to investigate the reporting of device standardisation, monitoring and training in trials evaluating complex interventions, using AVB as a case study. Methods and analysis Relevant keywords and subject headings will be used to conduct a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov, for RCTs and pilot/feasibility studies evaluating AVB. Abstracts will be screened and full-text articles of eligible studies reviewed for inclusion. Information relating to the following categories will be extracted: standardisation of device use (ie, descriptions of operative steps, including mandatory/flexible parameters), monitoring of intervention delivery (ie, intervention fidelity, confirming that an intervention is delivered as intended) and accoucher expertise (ie, entry criteria for participation, training programmes and previous experience with the device). Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required because primary data will not be collected. Findings will be disseminated by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.

Background No new method of assisting vaginal birth has been introduced into clinical practice since the development of the vacuum extractor in the 1950s. The Odon Device is a new device that employs a circumferential air cuff over the fetal head to assist birth. In this study, the Odon Device has been used to assist vaginal birth for standard clinical indications. Objective This study aimed to investigate the clinical impact, safety, and acceptability of the Odon Device to women, their babies, and clinicians and to assess the feasibility of recruiting women to an interventional intrapartum research study. Study Design This is a nonrandomized, single-arm interventional feasibility study of the Odon Device for operative vaginal birth undertaken in a single maternity unit: Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom. The Odon Device was used to assist birth in 40 women who required the birth to be assisted for suspected fetal compromise and/or prolonged second stage of labor. The primary clinical outcome was the proportion of births successfully assisted with the Odon Device, and the primary feasibility outcome was the proportion of eligible women who were approached and who agreed to participate. Neonatal outcome data were reviewed at day 28, and maternal outcomes were investigated up to day 90. Results Between October 2018 and January 2019, 298 of 384 approached, eligible women (77.6%) consented to participate. Of these women, 40 received the intervention—the use of the Odon Device. Birth was assisted in all cephalic (occiput anterior, occiput transverse, and occiput posterior) fetal positions, at all stations at or below the ischial spine and with or without regional analgesia. The Odon Device was effective in 19 of 40 cases (48%). Of the 40 births, 21 (52.5%) required additional assistance: 18 of 40 births (45%) were completed using nonrotational forceps, 1 of 40 births (3%) required rotational forceps, and 2 of 40 births (5%) required an emergency cesarean delivery. There was no serious maternal or neonatal adverse event related to the use of the device, and there was no serious adverse device effect. There were 4 devices (10%) that were ineffective because of a manufacturing fault. Furthermore, 39 of 40 women (98%) reported a high birth perception score. All practitioners were able to use the device as intended, although some steps in using the device were reported to be easier to perform (setup and deflation of air chamber) than others (application of the device and withdrawal of the applicator). Conclusion Recruitment to an interventional study of a new device for operative vaginal birth was feasible; 78% of eligible women were willing to participate, often expressing an aspiration for an alternative to forceps and vacuum. The success rate of the Odon Device was lower than reported success rates of vacuum and forceps; however, in this study, the device had been used to assist birth for standard clinical indications. There was no significant maternal or neonatal safety concern associated with the use of the device, although the number of births studied was small. Further feasibility study to establish iterative changes to the device, technique, and clinical indications is necessary.

e13598 Background: The impact on cancer outcomes from the Covid-19 pandemic has yet to be determined. Concerns persist on screening, delays in diagnosis, treatment interruptions and outcomes of infection in the immunosuppressed. The need for agile working has been exemplified by establishment of Nightingale Hospitals, staff redeployment and sudden integration of virtual consultations into clinical working. With most cancer clinical trials halted, recruitment into COVID-19 research became essential and embedded into the everyday. Here we present how rapid implementation of COVID-19 randomised clinical trials within an NHS organisation during the pandemic was achieved. Methods: A COVID-19 senior facilitation committee was set up to provide oversight, maximise staff capacity and resource and prioritise studies. Specific strategies to maximise access and clinical trials recruitment for patients including children and those with solid tumours were designed. These included presence of a research nurse at clinical ward rounds and team meetings, the promotion of protocol and informed consent training to all including doctors in the acute settings and weekly research meetings to share-best practice. Reflecting on learnings from this time provide an opportunity to consider how we adjust working for our patients in the future. Results: The integration of research into the everyday working of clinical teams looking after patients with COVID-19 has become the norm. The provision of protocol and informed consent training for all levels of staff and the consideration of all patients for trials during clinical ward rounds and multi-disciplinary meetings, have ensured access to trials has become embedded. The integration of research nurses working, upskilling and prompting clinical colleagues has ensured equity of access and provided a research presence and focus during the busy clinical day. The adoption of cross-disciplinary working, sharing best practice and a culture of commitment and support to the trials ensures no patient is denied the opportunity to participate. Three RTCs opened over 7 weeks. At one site 1904 patients were screened for one of the randomised-controlled trials and over 18% of these patients (351) were recruited and 175 patients declined. Conclusions: The pandemic has had a devastating impact across the UK. However, a coordinated and collaborative multi-disciplinary approach has supported high recruitment and equity of access for patients into COVID-19 trials. Learnings from this work may lead to embedding clinical trials and access to translational research for cancer patients in the future as we recover from the full impact of the pandemic. COVID-19 research has demonstrated how increased recruitment accelerates access and implementation of new innovations and novel drug combinations.The full impact of improved access to cancer research in the future during COVID recovery is worthy of more research.

Background Designing RCTs in surgery requires consideration of existing evidence, stakeholders' views and emerging interventions, to ensure that research questions are relevant to patients, surgeons and the health service. When there is uncertainty about RCT design, feasibility work is recommended. This study aimed to assess how feasibility work could inform the design of a future pilot study and RCT (Bluebelle, HTA ‐ 12/200/04). Methods This was a prospective survey of dressings used to cover abdominal wounds. Surgical trainees from 25 hospitals were invited to participate. Information on patient risk factors, operation type and type of wound dressings used was recorded for elective and unplanned abdominal procedures over a 2‐week interval. The types of dressing used were summarized, and associations with operation type and patient risk factors explored. Results Twenty hospitals participated, providing data from 727 patients (1794 wounds). Wounds were predominantly covered with basic dressings (1203 of 1769, 68·0 per cent) and tissue adhesive was used in 27·4 per cent (485 of 1769); dressing type was missing for 25 wounds. Just 3·6 per cent of wounds (63 of 1769) did not have a dressing applied at the end of the procedure. There was no evidence of an association between type of dressing used and patient risk factors, type of operation, or elective and unscheduled surgery. Conclusion Based on the findings from this large study of current practice, the pilot study design has evolved. The inclusion criteria have expanded to encompass patients undergoing unscheduled surgery, and tissue adhesive as a dressing will be evaluated as an additional intervention group. Collaborative methods are recommended to inform the design of RCTs in surgery, helping to ensure they are relevant to current practice., Relevant background work

[No Abstract]

IntroductionTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of oropharyngeal tumours. The development, details and outcomes of early-to-later phase evaluation of this technique and the quality of evidence to support its adoption into practice have hitherto not been summarised. The aim of this review is to identify and summarise the early and later phase studies of, and evidence for, TORS and to understand how early phase studies report intervention development, governance procedures and selection and reporting of outcomes to optimise methods for using the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework for surgical innovation that informs evidence-based practice. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist.Methods and analysisElectronic searches in OVID SP versions of Medline and EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the start of indexing to 30 April 2017 will identify studies reporting TORS. At least two independent researchers will identify studies for inclusion. Two researchers will extract data from each paper. Studies will be categorised into IDEAL stages of study design from ‘pre-IDEAL’ to randomised controlled trials (stage 3). Data will be collected about the (1) novel intervention and criteria for modification, (2) governance arrangements and patient information provision, (3) outcome domains selected and reported and (4) quality of study design, conduct and reporting. Descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis will be presented.Ethics and disseminationThe results of this systematic review will be presented at relevant conferences. The methods will be used to inform future reviews exploring other novel surgical innovations. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This study does not require ethical approval.

Background The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) proposes a staged assessment of surgical innovation, but whether it can be used in practice is uncertain. This study aimed to review the reporting of a surgical innovation according to the IDEAL framework. Methods Systematic literature searches identified articles reporting laparoendoscopic excision for benign colonic polyps. Using the IDEAL stage recommendations, data were collected on: patient selection, surgeon and unit expertise, description of the intervention and modifications, outcome reporting, and research governance. Studies were categorized by IDEAL stages: 0/1, simple technical preclinical/clinical reports; 2a, technique modifications with rationale and safety data; 2b, expanded patient selection and reporting of both innovation and standard care outcomes; 3, formal randomized controlled trials; and 4, long-term audit and registry studies. Each stage has specific requirements for reporting of surgeon expertise, governance details and outcome reporting. Results Of 615 abstracts screened, 16 papers reporting outcomes of 550 patients were included. Only two studies could be put into IDEAL categories. One animal study was classified as stage 0 and one clinical study as stage 2a through prospective ethical approval, protocol registration and data collection. Studies could not be classified according to IDEAL for insufficient reporting details of patient selection, relevant surgeon expertise, and how and why the technique was modified or adapted. Conclusion The reporting of innovation in the context of laparoendoscopic colonic polyp excision would benefit from standardized methods.

IntroductionRigorous evaluation of innovative invasive procedures and medical devices is uncommon and lacks reporting standardisation. Devices may therefore enter routine practice without thorough evaluation, resulting in patient harm. Detailed guidance on how to select and report outcomes at each stage of evaluation is lacking. Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets (COS) is one strategy to promote safe and transparent evaluation.Methods and analysisA COS, comprising outcome domains applicable to all phases of evaluation of procedure/device introduction and modification and, if necessary, supplementary domains relevant to specific phases or types of innovation (procedure or device), will be developed according to principles outlined by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently. The study will have the following three phases:1. Generation of a list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items identified from (a) published studies, (b) hospital policy documentation, (c) regulatory body documentation and (d) stakeholder qualitative interviews. Identified items/domains will be categorised using a conceptual framework and formatted into Delphi consensus survey questionnaire items.2. Key stakeholders, including 50 patients and 150 professionals (surgeons, researchers, device manufacturers, regulatory representatives, journal editors) sampled from multinational sources, will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each reporting item and outcome.3. A consensus meeting with key stakeholders will discuss and agree the final content of the reporting guidance and COS(s).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (18/NE/0378). Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, development of plain English summaries/materials, patient engagement events, development of a social media identity, workshops and other events.

Background: National guidelines recommend that fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in all patients being considered for radical treatment of oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer without computerised tomography scan (CTS) evidence of metastasis. Guidance also mandates that all patients with cancer have treatment decisions made within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. Little is known, however, about the influence of PET-CT on decision making within MDTs. The aim of this study was to assess the role of PET-CT in oesophago-gastric cancer on MDT decision making. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively held database of all patients with biopsy-proven oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer discussed by a specialist MDT was interrogated. Patients selected for radical treatment without CTS evidence of M1 disease were identified. The influence of PET-CT on MDT decision making was examined by establishing whether the PET-CT confirmed CTS findings of M0 disease (and did not change the patient staging pathway) or whether the PET-CT changed the pathway by showing unsuspected M1 disease, refuting CTS suspicious metastases, or identifying another lesion (needing further investigation). Results: In 102 MDT meetings, 418 patients were discussed, of whom 240 were initially considered for radical treatment and 238 undergoing PET-CT. The PET-CT confirmed CTS findings for 147 (61.8%) and changed MDT recommendations in 91 patients (38.2%) by (i) identifying M1 disease (n=43), (ii) refuting CTS suspicions of M1 disease (n=25), and (iii) identifying new lesions required for investigations (n=23). Conclusion: The addition of PET-CT to standard staging for oesophageal cancer led to changes in MDT recommendations in 93 (38.2%) patients, improving patient selection for radical treatment. The validity of the proposed methods for evaluating PET-CT on MDT decision making requires more work in other centres and teams.

The purpose of the present study was to describe the impact of treatment of pancreatic and peri-ampullary malignancy on patient reported outcomes (PRO). However, limited data are available describing the impact of curative or palliative therapy on pancreatic/peri-ampullary malignancy and quality of life.Patients selected for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire pre-surgery and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively. Patients selected for palliative treatments completed the same questionnaire before treatment and monthly thereafter. Mean scores and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for functional scales. Symptom scales and single items were categorized as either minimal or severe, and they were reported as proportions of patients experiencing severe symptoms with 95 % CI.A total of 100 patients (53 planned PD, 47 palliative) were enrolled. Of the 53 patients planned for surgery, 12 had tumors that were unresectable and 41 underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Seven patients were excluded because of benign histology or concurrent malignancy. Baseline questionnaire compliance was 70 %. For those undergoing PD, there were 53 complications, 7 deaths at 1 year, and 14 deaths at 2 years. Post-surgery most functions and symptoms deteriorated. Recovery in global health and most symptoms occurred by 3 months, and functional scales recovered by 6 months. Recovery of PRO was maintained in the survivors at 2 years. Palliative patients had poorer function and more symptoms at baseline; however, poor follow-up questionnaire compliance prevented further analysis of this group.Pancreaticoduodenectomy has a short-term negative impact on PRO that recovers within 6 months and is maintained at 2 years in survivors. Further work evaluating palliative and curative treatment in larger patient groups with disease-specific questionnaires is necessary.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may lead to early restoration of health-related quality of life, but few prospective comparative studies have been performed. This exploratory study compared recovery between totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparoscopically assisted esophagectomy (LAE) and open surgery (OE).A prospective study in 2 specialist centers recruited consecutive patients undergoing OE, LAE, or MIE for high-grade dysplasia or cancer. Patients completed validated questionnaires, the Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), modified Katz Scale, and modified Lawton and Brody Scale (assessing activities of daily living) before and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery.A total of 97 patients (26 women; median age 64 years) were scheduled for surgery that was abandoned in 11 due to occult low-volume metastatic disease. In the remaining 86 (OE = 19, LAE = 31, and MIE = 36), there were 4 in-hospital deaths (4 %), and 54 postoperative complications (OE = 12, LAE = 19, and MIE = 23). Overall questionnaire compliance was high (77 %) and baseline scores similar in all groups, although clinical differences between groups were observed with earlier tumors and more squamous cell cancers selected for MIE. Following surgery fatigue levels increased dramatically and activity levels reduced in all groups. These gradually recovered to baseline following MIE and LAE within 6 months, but the ability to perform activities of daily living and most parameters of fatigue had not returned to baseline levels in the OE group.This exploratory prospective nonrandomized study of recovery after different types of surgery for esophageal cancer showed possible small benefits to MIE. A much larger study is needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND: Surgical wounds (incisions) heal by primary intention when the wound edges are brought together and secured, often with sutures, staples, or clips. Wound dressings applied after wound closure may provide physical support, protection and absorb exudate. There are many different types of wound dressings available and wounds can also be left uncovered (exposed). Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of wounds and this may be associated with using (or not using) dressings, or different types of dressing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of wound dressings compared with no wound dressings, and the effects of alternative wound dressings, in preventing SSIs in surgical wounds healing by primary intention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print; 1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016). There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound dressings with wound exposure (no dressing) or alternative wound dressings for the postoperative management of surgical wounds healing by primary intention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials (5718 participants). All studies except one were at an unclear or high risk of bias. Studies were small, reported low numbers of SSI events and were often not clearly reported. There were 16 trials that included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a 'clean' classification, five trials that included people undergoing what was considered 'clean/contaminated' surgery, with the remaining studies including people undergoing a variety of surgical procedures with different contamination classifications. Four trials compared wound dressings with no wound dressing (wound exposure); the remaining 25 studies compared alternative dressing types, with the majority comparing a basic wound contact dressing with film dressings, silver dressings or hydrocolloid dressings. The review contains 11 comparisons in total. Primary outcome: SSI It is uncertain whether wound exposure or any dressing reduces or increases the risk of SSI compared with alternative options investigated: we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for most comparisons (and low for others), with downgrading (according to GRADE criteria) largely due to risk of bias and imprecision. We summarise the results of comparisons with meta‐analysed data below: ‐ film dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.55), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. ‐ hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.78), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. ‐ hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.51), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. ‐ silver‐containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. ‐ silver‐containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. Secondary outcomes There was limited and low or very low certainty evidence on secondary outcomes such as scarring, acceptability of dressing and ease of removal, and uncertainty whether wound dressings influenced these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI, or whether any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the risk of SSI, improving scarring, reducing pain, improving acceptability to patients, or is easier to remove. Most studies in this review were small and at a high or unclear risk of bias. Based on the current evidence, decision makers may wish to base decisions about how to dress a wound following surgery on dressing costs as well as patient preference.

Multimodal strategies before surgery are often used to improve outcomes, but disease progression (precluding surgical resection) and inoperability at planned surgery still occur following neoadjuvant treatment. The standards of reporting of these outcomes have not previously been considered. This study examined reporting of rates of progression to surgical resection and inoperability at planned surgery following neoadjuvant treatment in surgical oncology, using esophageal cancer as a case study. A systematic review identified randomized trials and prospective nonrandomized studies reporting short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for esophageal cancer. Of 4,763 abstracts, 224 papers were retrieved and 76 studies included (8 randomized trials and 68 cohort studies of 19,441 esophagectomies). Articles reported outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy (n = 33, 43.4 %), chemoradiotherapy (n = 13, 17.1 %), or both within one paper (n = 18, 23.7 %) and 12 (15.8 %) did not specify the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Also, 20 papers (26.3 %) reported numbers of patients not progressing to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment (with rates of nonprogression ranging between 2.0 and 35.3 %). In addition, 24 papers (31.6 %) reported rates of inoperability at planned surgery (with inoperability rates ranging between 0 and 26.2 %). More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) than observational studies reported nonprogression (4 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies, 95 % CI −9.6 to 62.6 %, p = 0.108) and inoperability (6 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, 95 % CI 16.8–80.3 %, p = 0.005). Some 17 and 10 articles provided reasons for the observed rates of nonprogression and inoperability, respectively. Reporting rates of progression to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment and inoperability at planned surgery for esophageal cancer were poor, limiting data synthesis and comparisons. It is suggested that core outcome sets for trials in surgical oncology are developed with inclusion of these important endpoints. Collaboration between medical and surgical oncologists is necessary to achieve this.

Background: It is mandatory in many countries for decisions for all new patients with cancer to be made within multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs). Whether patients with disease recurrence should also routinely be discussed by the MDT is unknown. Aim: This study investigated the role of an upper gastro intestinal (UGI) MDT in decision-making for patients with disease recurrence. Design: A retrospective review of prospectively kept MDT records (2010 to 2011) was performed identifying patients discussed with recurrence of oesophagogastric cancer. Information was recorded about: i) why an MDT referral was made, ii) who made the referral and iii) the final MDT recommendation. Implementation of the MDT recommendation was also examined. Participants: All patients discussed with recurrence of cancer at a central UGI cancer MDT were included. Results: During the study 54 MDT meetings included discussions regarding 304 new patients and 29 with disease recurrence. Referrals to the MDT for patients with recurrence came from outpatient clinics ( n=19, 65.5%) or following emergency admission ( n=10). Most referrals were made by the surgical team ( n=25, 86.2%). MDT recommendations were best supportive care ( n=11, 37.9%), palliative chemotherapy ( n=9, 31.0%), stent ( n=5, 17.2%), palliative radiotherapy ( n=3, 10.3%) and further surgery ( n=1, 3.4%), with 25 (86.2%) of these implemented. Conclusion: UGI MDTs focus on new referrals and only a small proportion of patients with recurrent disease are re-discussed. Many patients go on to receive further treatments. Whether such patients are optimally managed within the standard MDT is uncertain, however, and warrants further consideration.

Objective This review summarizes reporting of complications of esophageal cancer surgery. Background Accurate assessment of morbidity and mortality after surgery for cancer is essential to compare centers, allow data synthesis, and inform clinical decision-making. A lack of defined standards may distort clinically relevant treatment effects. Methods Systematic literature searches identified articles published between 2005 and 2009 reporting morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Data were analyzed for frequency of complication reporting and to check whether outcomes were defined and classified for severity and whether a validated system for grading complications was used. Information about reporting outcomes adjusting for baseline risk factors was collated, and a descriptive summary of the results of included outcomes was undertaken. Results Of 3458 abstracts, 224 full papers were reviewed and 122 were included (17 randomized trials and 105 observational studies), reporting outcomes of 57,299 esophagectomies. No single complication was reported in all papers, and 60 (60.6%) did not define any of the measured complications. Anastomotic leak was the most commonly reported morbidity, assessed in 80 (80.1%) articles, defined in 28 (28.3%), but 22 different descriptions were used. Five papers (5.1%) categorized morbidity with a validated grading system. One hundred fifteen papers reported postoperative mortality rates, 25 defining the term using 10 different definitions. In-hospital mortality was the most commonly used term for postoperative death, with 6 different interpretations of this phrase. Eighteen papers adjusted outcomes for baseline risk factors and 60 presented baseline measures of comorbidity. Conclusions Outcome reporting after esophageal cancer surgery is heterogeneous and inconsistent, and it lacks methodological rigor. A consensus approach to reporting clinical outcomes should be considered, and at the minimum it is recommended that a "core outcome set" is defined and used in all studies reporting outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery. This will allow meaningful cross study comparisons and analyses to evaluate surgery.

Introduction Craft specialties, such as surgery, rely on practice to acquire skill. Yet recent changes in training in the United Kingdom have decreased experience and altered the balance of curriculum content. Most recently, the European Working Time Directive has led to a reduction in working hours and expansion in the number of trainees. The impact that these changes have had on operative experience, patient management, communication, and teaching skills is unclear. This study aims to assess the effects of the changing curriculum and work patterns on the experience of trainees at senior house officer (SHO, equivalent to junior resident) level in general surgery. Methods A structured questionnaire was sent to general surgery trainees at the SHO (n = 52) and specialist registrar (SpR, n = 69) levels (equivalent to senior resident) in the Severn Deanery, United Kingdom. Results In all, 70% of both SHOs and SpRs responded. SpRs had spent a mean of 50 months (21 months in general surgery) at the SHO level, compared with 24 months (9 months in general surgery) for current SHOs. A total of 90% of SpRs could perform an open appendectomy unsupervised by the end of their SHO training, compared with 28% of current SHOs. In all, 63% of SpRs and 8% of SHOs could undertake inguinal hernia repair unsupervised at SHO level. In addition, 90% of SpRs and 84% of SHOs felt operative skills have declined, whereas communication and teaching skills were deemed the same or better. Of the respondents, 88% of SpRs and 76% of SHOs thought surgical training was getting worse. Discussion Trainees are spending less time in surgery at the SHO level, and this is reflected in reported operative ability. The introduction of communication and teaching skills into the curriculum has had a perceived benefit. The reduction in working hours must be offset by implementing measures to maximize limited training opportunities. The potential implications of these changes in training and experience on patient outcomes remain to be determined.