Search

Background: Increasing evidence indicates that combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces the infectious complications of colorectal surgery. Anecdotal evidence suggests the combination is rarely used in the UK and Europe., Aim: To establish colorectal surgeons' current use and awareness of the benefits of such bowel preparation, and to identify decision-making influences surrounding preoperative bowel preparation., Method: An electronic survey was emailed to all members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, and promoted via Twitter., Findings: A total of 495 respondents completed the survey: 413 (83.2%) UK, 39 (7.9%) other European, 43 (8.7%) non-European. Respondents used oral antibiotics for 12-20% of cases. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), phosphate enema, and no preparation, respectively, ranged between 9 and 80%. Combined MBP and oral antibiotic bowel preparation ranged between 5.5 and 18.6%. Fifty-three percent (260/495) agreed that combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces surgical site infection; 32% (157/495) agreed that the combination reduces risk of anastomotic leak. Kappa statistics between 0.06 and 0.27 indicate considerable incongruity between surgeons' awareness of the literature, and day-to-day practice. Twenty-four percent (96/495) believed MBP to be incompatible with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS); 41% (204/495) believed that MBP delays return to normal intestinal function., Conclusions: Few UK and European colorectal surgeons use mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, despite evidence of its efficacy in reducing infectious complications. The influence of ERAS pathways and UK and European guidelines may explain this. In contradiction to the UK and Europe, North American guidelines recommend incorporating combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation into ERAS programmes. This study suggests that future UK and European guidelines incorporate combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation into the ERAS pathway., (Copyright © 2018 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: This study aimed to survey consultants' experience of working as or with emergency general surgery (EGS) surgeons and to investigate the role they fulfil in the management of general and subspeciality emergencies., Method: An electronic survey, designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data, was piloted and then circulated to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland., Results: Two hundred and forty-two responses were received from 848 recipients (a 29% response rate) covering 104 of 135 (77%) acute NHS Trusts in England. EGS surgeons were in post in 43/141 (30%) hospitals overall and 12/24 (50%) of hospitals in London. Most respondents working in units with EGS surgeons found them to be advantageous (46/63, 73%). Consultants working with EGS surgeons were significantly more likely to support their use (49/63, 78%) than those without them (83/178, 47%) (χ 2  = 16.9, P < 0.001). EGS surgeons were considered to improve the delivery of EGS (78%), create time for subspecialists (70%) and provide service (73%). However, there were concerns about the quality of surgery (43%), an insufficient standard of specialist care (54%) and compromise in the training of juniors (25%). Respondents commented on a lack of job structure with a high attrition rate (21%), the insufficient quality of applicants (18%) and that subspecialization and split on-call was preferable (17%)., Conclusion: Respondents were supportive of the ability of EGS surgeons to relieve pressure on subspecialists; however, there were significant concerns about the sustainability and quality of the EGS surgeon role. Emergency colorectal resections should have the input of a surgeon who performs elective colorectal resections., (Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Perineal wound morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE). There is no consensus on the optimum perineal reconstruction method after APE, and in particular 'extra-levator APE' (ELAPE)., Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. This position statement formulated clinical questions and graded the evidence to make recommendations., Results: Perineal wound complications may be higher following ELAPE compared to 'conventional APE (cAPE)' however there is insufficient evidence to recommend cAPE over ELAPE with regards to the impact upon perineal wound healing. The majority of cAPE studies have used primary closure with varying complication rates reported. Where concerns regarding perineal wound healing exist, myocutaneous flap closure may be considered as an alternative method. There is minimal available evidence on perineal mesh reconstruction following cAPE. Primary closure, mesh use and myocutaneous flap reconstruction following ELAPE has been reported although variations in definitions and low-quality of available evidence limit comparison. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular method of perineal closure after ELAPE. Primary perineal closure is likely to have a higher risk of perineal herniation. Myocutaneous flaps and biological mesh have been effectively used in ELAPE closure. There is insufficient evidence to support one particular type of flap or mesh. Perineal wound complication rates are significantly increased when neo-adjuvant radiotherapy is delivered, regardless of surgical technique. There is no evidence that laparoscopy reduces APE perineal wound complications., Conclusion: This position statement updates clinicians on current evidence around perineal closure after APE surgery., (Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

It is over 10 years since the first ACPGBI Position Statement on the management of anal fistula was published in 2007. This second edition is the result of scrutiny of the literature published during this time; it updates the original Position Statement and reviews the published evidence surrounding treatments for anal fistula that have been developed since the original publication., (Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) Delphi process identified prevention and treatment of parastomal hernia (PSH) as the second highest priority non-cancer related colorectal pathology. This position statement aims to summarize the current evidence base., Methods: Four broad themes were identified (prevention, diagnosis/classification, management and operative repair). Guidelines are based on evidence from an extensive literature review using organized searches on the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adhered to for classifying the quality of evidence and reporting the strength of recommendations., Results: The suture repair of PSH other than for patients in extremis is not recommended. Synthetic non-absorbable mesh can be used safely in the short term in the construction of colostomies post rectal surgery, but longer-term follow-up is needed. Other broad recommendations are made around access to stoma care nurses, prevention classification and management., Conclusion: There is a lack of high quality evidence for many domains in the prevention and treatment of PSH but the results of several studies are awaited. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: Parastomal hernias are a common and debilitating condition following stoma formation. This position statement from ACPGBI details the current evidence base and ongoing research for the prevention, diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias., (Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: In order to develop its education agenda, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) sought the opinion of its members on current coloproctology training needs. The aims of this study were to canvass multidisciplinary needs and explore the perceived gaps and barriers to meeting them., Method: A learner-needs analysis was performed between July 2015 and October 2016. A bespoke electronic survey was sent to 1453 colorectal healthcare professionals [ACPGBI membership (1173), colorectal nurse specialists and allied health professionals (NAHPs) (261) and regional chapter-leads (19)] seeking their needs, experiences and barriers to training across the coloproctology disciplines., Results: In all, 390 responses were received [26.8% overall; 180 consultants/trainees (15%); 196 NAHPs (75%); 14 (74%) chapter-leads]. Lack of funding and difficulties in obtaining study leave were the most frequently reported barriers to course and conference attendance. Transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic training were the top educational needs for consultants and trainees respectively. 79% of NAHP respondents reported education gaps on a broad range of clinical and non-clinical topics. NAHPs lacked information on relevant training opportunities and 27% felt available courses were insufficient to meet their educational needs. Wide heterogeneity in ACPGBI chapter composition and activity was reported. All groups felt the ACPGBI should increase the number of courses offered with coloproctology knowledge updates commonly requested., Conclusion: A series of training needs across the coloproctology disciplines have been identified. These will underpin the development of the educational agenda for the ACPGBI., (Colorectal Disease © 2017 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: Patients diagnosed with a malignant polyp generally have favourable overall survival (OS) and cancer‐specific survival (CSS). However, it is unclear how choice in management for malignant polyps may affect survival. Methods: Data from the Queensland Oncology Repository was analysed to derive a population wide assessment of the impact of management strategy on OS and CSS for patients diagnosed with malignant polyps. Log‐rank testing, Kaplan–Meier and Cox‐regression models were performed. Patients were matched using propensity score and Mahalanobis distance matching. Results: A total of 1,646 patients were included with 240 deaths and 52 colorectal cancer related deaths until censor date. Following propensity score and Mahalanobis distance matching of patients undergoing polypectomy alone versus colorectal resection, there was no significant difference in the age groups (<60 years of age or ≥60 years of age), American Society of Anesthesiology score, comorbidity count or Association of ColoProctology of Great Britain and Ireland risk category. However, of note Log‐rank testing demonstrated a significant difference in OS (p < 0.001) and CSS (p = 0.0061) between management strategies. Multivariable Cox‐regression models in matched and un‐matched patient cohorts demonstrated significantly lower hazards of death for OS with resection (p < 0.001). However, CSS was no longer significantly different between management groups in multivariable Cox‐regression analysis (p = 0.073). Conclusion: Patients who underwent colorectal resection had significantly improved OS and CSS compared with polypectomy alone. Improved OS was furthermore seen on multivariable analysis, and in matched cohorts. Future research should investigate why this unexpected finding may be the case and whether updates to guidelines should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence‐based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland. Methods: Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology‐based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence‐based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines. Results: All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management. Conclusion: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence‐based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The use of rectal tubes in colorectal surgery appears to be a matter of individual choice, with little documented evidence to support their use. This study assesses the current practice of rectal tubes amongst consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland (ACPGBI). Methods A piloted questionnaire was sent to practising ACPGBI consultant members listed in the 2003–04 directory. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software and Fishers exact test. Results Three hundred and thirty-nine replies were received from 579 posted questionnaires (response rate = 58.5%). Rectal tubes were used by 116 (35%) of responding surgeons. Rectal tubes were more commonly used by surgeons with less than 10 years practice as a consultant ( P < 0.005). The main indications for tube placement were following ileo-anal or colonic pouch surgery (73%), after any anterior resection (36%) (rectal tubes were reserved for only low anterior resections by 16% of surgeons) and in the rectal stump after total or subtotal colectomy for acute colitis (11%). Twenty-three percent of these practising surgeons would use a rectal tube as an alternative to a diverting stoma, predominantly in selected patients following ileo-anal pouch surgery. A Foley catheter was the commonest type of tube used (70%) and this was usually placed above the anastomosis (80%). Rectal tubes were left in situ for a median of 5 days (range = 1–13 days). Three surgeons (2.6%) reported serious complications including tube perforation of the bowel or anastomosis. Several different mechanisms were suggested for the purpose and functioning of the rectal tube, the commonest being to decompress the rectum and/or pouch. Conclusion Rectal tube placement is simple and safe and is used by a third of colorectal surgeons in UK and Ireland. Given their simplicity, the efficacy of rectal tubes in reducing local anastomotic complications requires further evaluation within the confines of a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]