Search

Background: Major abdominal surgery (MAS) can have a profound impact on the patient but there is currently no consensus as to which surgical procedures constitute MAS. The main objective of this work is to ascertain the terminology used to describe MAS procedures and to apply these findings in order to propose a definition of MAS. Methods: The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (R) ALL, Embase Classic and Embase (via OvidSP), Global Health (via OvidSP), Health Management Information Consortium (via OvidSP), APA PsycInfo (via OvidSP), PubMed and Web of Science. Original research articles, published between 1980 and April 26, 2022 that contained a description of MAS procedure were included in this study. Article screening and data extraction was undertaken independently by 3 authors. Content analysis was performed to identify key terminology used to describe MAS. Results: Five thousand six hundred and sixty three articles were identified, of which 767 underwent full‐text review and 312 were included in the scoping review. Content analysis resulted in 4 main categories: (1) pre‐operative factors, (2) intraoperative factors, (3) operation‐related factors, (4) post‐operative factors. Operation‐related factors was the predominant category (1137 references coded). The gastrointestinal resection made the vast majority of the references coded (591). Conclusions: Based on these results, the term "major abdominal surgery" should be defined as an intra‐peritoneal operation with no primary involvement of the thorax, involving either luminal resection and/or resection of a solid organ associated with the gastrointestinal tract. However, further work is required to verify this definition using real world data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this multicentre prospective audit was to describe the current practice in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on rates of surgical intervention. Methods: This audit was conducted in two phases from August 2020 to August 2021; a phase 1 practice survey and a phase 2 prospective audit. Primary outcome measurements for phase 2 included patient management pathway characteristics and treatment type (medical/radiological/surgical). Results: A total of 69 hospitals participated in phase 2 (1312 patients). The key findings were a high overall rate of incision and drainage (21.0 per cent) and a lower than anticipated proportion of ultrasound-guided aspiration of breast abscesses (61.0 per cent). Significant variations were observed regarding the rate of incision and drainage (range 0–100 per cent; P < 0.001) and the rate of needle aspiration (range 12.5–100 per cent; P < 0.001) between individual units. Overall, 22.5 per cent of patients were admitted for inpatient treatment, out of whom which 72.9 per cent were commenced on intravenous antibiotics. The odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment were significantly higher if patients presented at the weekend compared with a weekday (P ≤ 0.023). Breast specialists reviewed 40.9 per cent of all patients directly, despite the majority of patients (74.2 per cent) presenting within working hours on weekdays. Conclusions: Variation in practice exists in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses, with high rates of incision and drainage in certain regions of the UK. There is an urgent need for a national best-practice toolbox to minimize practice variation and standardize patient care. The Mastitis and Mammary Abscess Management Audit (MAMMA) is the first international audit, conducted in 69 hospitals across the UK and Ireland, involving contemporaneous data capture on the presentation and management of 1312 patients with mastitis and breast abscess. Key results included a substantial inpatient admission rate (22.5 per cent), a high overall rate of surgical incision and drainage (21.0 per cent), and a comparatively low use of ultrasound-guided aspiration (61.0 per cent). The data also identified significantly increased odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment, if patients presented at the weekend compared with on a weekday. Lay Summary: Mastitis and breast abscess is a painful infection of the breast. It is an extremely common breast problem. One in three women can get this condition at some stage in their life. To treat a breast abscess, the pus inside should be drained out of the body. This can be done either by cutting into the breast using surgery or by inserting a fine needle using an ultrasonography scan (which uses ultrasound). Fine-needle drainage has the benefit that it does not require admission to hospital. Surgery can cause the breast to look misshapen. It is unknown which method is used more often in the UK and Ireland. The aim of this study was to describe how mastitis and breast abscesses are treated in the UK and Ireland. This study involved a survey of practice (phase 1) and collection of data, which are routinely recorded for these patients (phase 2). This study involved 69 hospitals and 1312 patient records. One in five women had an operation for a breast abscess. This was higher than expected. Six in 10 women had a pus drainage using a fine needle. The chance of having an operation depended on the hospital. Women that came to hospital at the weekend were almost twice as likely to have an operation. One in five women were admitted to hospital. The chances of that more than doubled if a woman came to hospital at the weekend. There are differences in treatment of mastitis and breast abscesses across the UK and Ireland. Changes need to be put in place to make access to treatment more equal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with primary graft patency 1 year following open lower limb revascularisation (LLR) at a tertiary referral vascular service. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing infra-inguinal bypass surgery between January 2016 and May 2017 at a tertiary vascular centre (St Mary's Hospital, London) was performed. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, type of operation and post-operative anti-thrombotic strategy were collected. Quality of run-off score was assessed from pre-operative imaging. Results: Seventy-seven cases were included in the analysis. Overall, the primary patency rate at 1-year was 63.6% (n = 49/77) and the secondary patency rate was 67.5% (n = 52/77). Independent variables with statistically significant inferior patency rates at 1-year were (1) bypasses with below knee targets (p = 0.0096), (2) chronic limb threatening ischaemia indication (p = 0.038), (3) previous ipsilateral revascularisation (p < 0.001) and (4) absence of hypertension history (p = 0.041). There was also a trend towards significance for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (p = 0.06). Independent variables with log-rank test p values of <0.1 were included in a Cox proportional hazards model. The only variable with a statistically significant impact on primary patency rates was previous open or endovascular ipsilateral revascularisation (HR 2.44 (1.04–5.7), p = 0.04). Conclusion: At 1-year follow-up, previous ipsilateral revascularisation was the most significant factor in affecting patency rates. Patients in this subgroup should therefore be deemed high-risk, which should be reflected in the informed consent and peri-operative management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions.Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated 'standard' or 'COVID-altered', in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting.Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had 'COVID-altered' management. 'Bridging' endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2-9%) using 'NHS Predict'. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey.Conclusions: The majority of 'COVID-altered' management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-x [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses results of a nationwide student survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education across the United Kingdom (UK). Survey results presented indicate the teaching experiences of students from medical schools, conversion of courses to online and cancellation of courses due to difficulty in skills-based teaching models online. The survey identified the most adopted online teaching modalities and challenge posed by online practical skills teaching.