Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Prophylactic colectomy at a premalignant stage is the cornerstone of management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Before surgery, colonoscopy surveillance is recommended in children with FAP. This study aimed to examine the natural history of FAP in children by evaluating adenoma progression and factors influencing timing of colectomy. Method: Patients with FAP younger than 18 years at first surveillance colonoscopy and who had undergone more than 1 colonoscopy were identified. Demographic, endoscopic, genetic, and surgical data were retrieved. Cumulative adenoma (polyp) counts were obtained while accounting for any polypectomies during the study period. The rate of polyp progression and factors influencing the timing of colectomy were evaluated. Eighty-four patients (50% boys; mean age at first colonoscopy 13 years [standard deviation 1.97]) were identified, of which 83 had a family history of FAP. At first colonoscopy, 67 (79%) had <100 adenomas and 29 (35%) had colonic polyps identified despite rectal sparing. The median rate of polyp progression per patient was 12.5?polyps/year (range 0–145). Of the 45 (54%) patients who had undergone surgery, 41 (91%) underwent colectomy with ileorectal or ileodistal sigmoid anastomosis. Polyp progression did not alter the choice of surgical intervention in any patient. Our results suggest that adenoma number remains relatively stable in the majority of children under surveillance. Tailored surveillance intervals according to phenotype are a more appropriate strategy as recommended by recently published guidelines.

ObjectiveLack of standardised outcomes hampers effective analysis and comparison of data when comparing treatments in fistulising perianal Crohn’s disease (pCD). Development of a standardised set of outcomes would resolve these issues. This study provides the definitive core outcome set (COS) for fistulising pCD.DesignCandidate outcomes were generated through a systematic review and patient interviews. Consensus was established via a three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on how important they felt it was in determining treatment success culminating in a final consensus meeting. Stakeholders were recruited nationally and grouped into three panels (surgeons and radiologists, gastroenterologists and IBD specialist nurses, and patients). Participants received feedback from their panel(in the second round) and all participants(in the third round) to allow refinement of their scores.ResultsA total of 295 outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and interviews that were categorised into 92 domains. 187 stakeholders (response rate 78.5%) prioritised 49 outcomes through a three-round Delphi study. The final consensus meeting of 41 experts and patients generated agreement on an eight domain COS. The COS comprised three patient-reported outcome domains (quality of life, incontinence and a combined score of patient priorities) and five clinician-reported outcome domains (perianal disease activity, development of new perianal abscess/sepsis, new/recurrent fistula, unplanned surgery and faecal diversion).ConclusionA fistulising pCD COS has been produced by all key stakeholders. Application of the COS will reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting, thereby facilitating more meaningful comparisons between treatments, data synthesis and ultimately benefit patient care.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

International comparison of in-hospital mortality after esophagectomy was undertaken using administrative data sets from the United States and England. Overall mortality was higher in the United States. However, when only high-volume centers were compared, US mortality was lower than that seen in English centers, supporting the concept of centralizing high-risk cancer surgery.

The identification of health care institutions with outlying outcomes is of great importance for reporting health care results and for quality improvement. Historically, elective surgical outcomes have received greater attention than nonelective results, although some studies have examined both. Differences in outlier identification between these patient groups have not been adequately explored.