Search

It is estimated that more than half of all cancers develop bony metastases, exacting a substantial cost in terms of patient quality of life and healthcare expenses. Prompt diagnosis and management have been shown to reduce morbidity and costs. When a patient with a history of cancer presents with musculoskeletal pain, heightened awareness of the risk of bone metastasis should prompt immediate referral to an orthopedic specialist. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to identify an appropriate treatment plan for the patient based on the prognosis, fracture status, and extent of skeletal disease.

Objective To explore the processes, challenges and strategies used to govern and maintain inter-organisational collaboration between professionals in a provider network in London, United Kingdom, which implemented major system change focused on the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery. Methods We used a qualitative design involving interviews with stakeholders ( n = 117), non-participant observations ( n = 163) and documentary analysis ( n = 100). We drew on an existing model of collaboration in healthcare organisations and expanded this framework by applying it to the analysis of collaboration in the context of major system change. Results Network provider organisations established shared goals, maintained central figures who could create and sustain collaboration, and promoted distributed forms of leadership. Still, organisations continued to encounter barriers or challenges in relation to developing opportunities for mutual acquaintanceship across all professional groups; the active sharing of knowledge, expertise and good practice across the network; the fostering of trust; and creation of information exchange infrastructures fit for collaborative purposes. Conclusion Collaborative relationships changed over time, becoming stronger post-implementation in some areas, but continued to be negotiated where resistance to the centralisation remained. Future research should explore the sustainability of these relationships and further unpack how hierarchies and power relationships shape inter-organisational collaboration.

Background Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. Methods We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. Results Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). Conclusions These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. Trial Registration Not applicable.

Objective Major system change (MSC) has multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals and involves implementing change across a number of organizations. This study sought to develop new understanding of how the role that networks can play in implementing MSC, using the case of centralization of specialist cancer surgery in London, UK. Methods The study was based on a framework drawn from literature on networks and MSC. We analysed 100 documents, conducted 134 h of observations during relevant meetings and 81 interviews with stakeholders involved in the centralization. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. Results MSC in specialist cancer services was a contested process, which required constancy in network leadership over several years, and its horizontal and vertical distribution across the network. A core central team composed of network leaders, managers and clinical/manager hybrid roles was tasked with implementing the changes. This team developed different forms of engagement with provider organizations and other stakeholders. Some actors across the network, including clinicians and patients, questioned the rationale for the changes, the clinical evidence used to support the case for change, and the ways in which the changes were implemented. Conclusions Our study provides new understanding of MSC by discussing the strategies used by a provider network to facilitate complex changes in a health care context in the absence of a system-wide authority.

Denervation of the pylorus after oesophagectomy is considered the principal factor responsible for delayed gastric emptying. Several studies have attempted to delineate whether surgical or chemical management of the pylorus during oesophagectomy is of benefit, but with conflicting results. The aim of this multicentre study was to assess whether there was any difference in outcomes between different approaches to management of the pylorus. A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients who underwent oesophagectomy for malignancy. They were divided into separate cohorts based on the specific pyloric intervention: intra-pyloric botulinum toxin injection, pyloroplasty and no pyloric treatment. Main outcome parameters were naso-gastric tube duration and re-siting, endoscopic pyloric intervention after surgery both as in- and outpatient, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality and delayed gastric emptying symptoms at first clinic appointment. Ninety patients were included in this study, 30 in each group. The duration of post-operative naso-gastric tube placement demonstrated significance between the groups (p = 0.001), being longer for patients receiving botulinum treatment. The requirement for endoscopic pyloric treatment after surgery was again poorer for those receiving botulinum (p = 0.032 and 0.003 for inpatient and outpatient endoscopy, respectively). We did not find evidence of superiority of surgical treatment or botulinum toxin of the pylorus, as prophylactic treatment for potential delayed gastric emptying after oesophagectomy, compared to no treatment at all. Based on our findings, no treatment of the pylorus yielded the most favourable outcomes.

SUMMARY Centralization of care has improved outcomes in esophagogastric (EG) cancer surgery. However, specialist surgical centers often work within clinical silos, with little transfer of knowledge and experience. Although variation exists in multiple dimensions of perioperative care, the differences in operative technique are rarely studied. An esophageal anastomosis workshop was held to identify areas of common and differing practice within the operative technique. Surgeons showed videos of their anastomosis technique by open and minimally invasive surgery. Each video was followed by a discussion. Surgeons from 10 different EG cancer centers attended. Eight key technical differences and learning points were identified and discussed: the optimum diameter of the gastric conduit; avoiding ischemia in the gastric conduit; minimizing esophageal trauma; the use of an esophageal mucosal collar; omental wrapping; intraoperative leak testing; ideal diameter of the circular stapler and the growing use of linear stapled anastomoses. The workshop received positive feedback from participants and on 2 years follow-up, 40% stated that they believed that the learning of tips and techniques during the workshop has contributed to lowering their anastomotic leak rate. Many differences exist in surgical technique. The reasons for, and crucially the significance of, these differences must be discussed and examined. Workshops provide a forum for peer-to-peer collaborative learning to reflect on one’s own practice and improve surgical technique. These changes can, in turn, generate incremental improvements in patient care and postoperative outcomes.

Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, with little improvement in outcomes in recent years. Surgery maintains its pivotal role in cure, but this involves two or three compartment dissection with associated high risks. Chiefly, pulmonary complications following surgery are most common, and can be life-threatening. As a consequence, minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy have been performed with improving efficacy and equivalent oncological outcomes. This is a review of the pertinent literature regarding these techniques. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:731-735. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The objectives of this national study were to examine the short-term safety and long-term survival benefit associated with surgical resection of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer. Patients from the Hospital Episode Statistics database were classified by disease and treatment approach. Gastric cancer: 1. Without liver metastases treated by gastrectomy (GG). 2. With liver metastases treated by gastrectomy and hepatectomy (GGH). 3. With liver metastases treated by gastrectomy without hepatectomy (GGNH). 4. With liver metastases treated with no surgery (GNS). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to compensate for differences in some baseline characteristics. During the study period, 87,482 were patients diagnosed with gastric cancer, of whom 13,841 underwent partial or total gastrectomy. Of those who underwent gastrectomy, 336 had a diagnosis of liver metastases and 78 of these had a hepatectomy. Propensity-matched analysis showed no significant differences in 30- or 90-day mortality between the GGH and GG groups. The GGH group had significantly improved 1-year mortality (35.9 % vs. 50.0 %, p = 0.049) and 5-year mortality (61.5 % vs. 75.7 %, p = 0.031) compared to the GGNH group, and compared to the GNS group, the GCH group had 1-year mortality (35.9 % vs. 84.6 %, p

Importance \ud Early esophagogastric cancer (OGC) stage presents with nonspecific symptoms.\ud \ud Objective \ud The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of a breath test for the diagnosis of OGC in a multicenter validation study.\ud \ud Design, Setting, and Participants \ud Patient recruitment for this diagnostic validation study was conducted at 3 London hospital sites, with breath samples returned to a central laboratory for selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) analysis. Based on a 1:1 cancer:control ratio, and maintaining a sensitivity and specificity of 80%, the sample size required was 325 patients. All patients with cancer were on a curative treatment pathway, and patients were recruited consecutively. Among the 335 patients included; 172 were in the control group and 163 had OGC.\ud \ud Interventions \ud Breath samples were collected using secure 500-mL steel breath bags and analyzed by SIFT-MS. Quality assurance measures included sampling room air, training all researchers in breath sampling, regular instrument calibration, and unambiguous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identification by gas chromatography mass spectrometry.\ud \ud Main Outcomes and Measures \ud The risk of cancer was identified based on a previously generated 5-VOCs model and compared with histopathology-proven diagnosis.\ud \ud Results \ud Patients in the OGC group were older (median [IQR] age 68 [60-75] vs 55 [41-69] years) and had a greater proportion of men (134 [82.2%]) vs women (81 [47.4%]) compared with the control group. Of the 163 patients with OGC, 123 (69%) had tumor stage T3/4, and 106 (65%) had nodal metastasis on clinical staging. The predictive probabilities generated by this 5-VOCs diagnostic model were used to generate a receiver operator characteristic curve, with good diagnostic accuracy, area under the curve of 0.85. This translated to a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 81% for the diagnosis of OGC.\ud \ud Conclusions and Relevance \ud This study shows the potential of breath analysis in noninvasive diagnosis of OGC in the clinical setting. The next step is to establish the diagnostic accuracy of the test among the intended population in primary care where the test will be applied.

Background Acquired aerodigestive fistulae (ADF) are rare, but associated with a high mortality rate. We present our experience of the diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients with ADFs treated at a tertiary centre. Utilising our findings, we propose an anatomical classification system, demonstrating how specific features of an ADF may determine management. Methods A clinical database was searched and 48 patients with an ADF were identified. A classification system was developed based on anatomical location of the ADF and differences in clinico-pathological features based on this categorisation were performed, with the chi-squared test used for inferential analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test to assess survival. Results Twenty (41.6%) patients developed an ADF secondary to malignancy, with previous radiotherapy (18.7%), post-operative anastomotic dehiscence and endotherapy (14.6% each) representing other causes. Thirty-one patients were managed with tracheal and/or oesophageal stents and eight underwent surgical repair. The classification system demonstrated benign causes of ADF were either proximally or distally sited, whilst a malignant cause resulted in mid-tracheal fistulae (p = 0.001), with the latter associated with poorer survival. ADFs over 20 mm in size were associated with poor survival (p = 0.011), as was the use of previous radiotherapy. Proximal and distal ADFs were associated with improved survival (p = 0.006), as were those patients managed surgically (p = 0.001). Conclusion By classifying ADFs, we have demonstrated that anatomical location correlates with the size, history of malignancy, previous radiotherapy and aetiology of ADF, which can affect management. The proposed classification system will aid in formulating multi-modality individualised treatment plans.

We describe the management of a woman who presented with synchronous mycotic aortic aneurysms of the aortic arch in the presence of Kommerell diverticulum, the distal thoracic, and the juxtarenal aorta. A staged stent graft repair was undertaken due to rapid expansion of the aneurysms, which involved placement of multiple thoracic quadruple-fenestrated and infrarenal bifurcated stent grafts. Despite complications of an aortoesophageal fistula and transitory spinal cord ischemia, she has been managed successfully and is doing well at 36 months. This case illustrates that stent graft repair of mycotic aneurysms can offer a successful treatment option in selected patients.

Despite advances in imaging techniques, peritoneal and/or metastatic disease have been identified by staging laparoscopy in up to 50 % of patients with a negative preoperative imaging. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been recently shown as a prognostic factor in gastric and esophageal cancers. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 117 patients with early gastric and lower esophagus adenocarcinoma that were referred for staging laparoscopy in the last two years in the University College Hospital, London. Complete blood count was performed preceding staging laparoscopy. The NLR was calculated by dividing the absolute neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count; a high NLR was defined ≥3.28. We evaluated the predictive power of a high NLR for a positive staging laparoscopy. The median age was 66.7 years; 87 (74.4 %) were male. Forty-four percent of the tumors were located at the gastroesophageal junction, 18 % were esophageal, and 38 % were gastric. Twenty-five (21.4 %) patients were found to have peritoneal or metastatic disease on staging laparoscopy. NLR ≥3.28 was an independent predicting factor for the discovery of peritoneal and/or metastatic disease (OR 3.9, 95 % CI: 1.54–9.86, p = 0.005). The median value of NLR was significantly higher in patients for whom the laparoscopy had discovered peritoneal or metastatic disease, than in those it had not (3.3 vs. 2.2, p = 0.011). Our findings suggest that the NLR may be reliable for predicting the presence of peritoneal or metastatic involvement on staging laparoscopy, in patients with early gastric cancer or lower esophageal cancer.

Background The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. Methods This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n = 186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. Results We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. Conclusions This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4137-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conceptual framework: key components of major system change. Conceptual framework. (DOCX 100 kb)

Summary of raw data. Summary of raw data. (DOCX 23 kb)

What you need to know Oesophageal cancer is currently the sixth commonest source of cancer-associated death across the world: 572 034 new cases and 508 585 mortalities were reported in 2018.1 Global disease incidence has increased significantly in the past four decades.23 Recent data from the World Health Organization suggest that age-standardised incidence is higher across eastern Asia than any other region, but the UK continues to harbour the highest incidence among individual countries.1 In this review, “oesophageal cancer” refers to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and that of the gastro-oesophageal junction, because their pathophysiological and clinical similarities allow them to be staged and managed as similar entities (gastric cancer is staged differently).4 Over the past decade, the increased uptake of early referral schemes across the UK, North America, and Western Europe has improved detection of early stage, curable disease.567 Coupled with novel endoscopic therapies and perioperative treatment strategies, overall survival rates have also improved.8 This review aims to guide generalists through the referral and early diagnosis processes of oesophageal cancer, as well as highlighting risk and current preventive strategies. Oesophageal cancer refers to tumours originating from the oesophageal mucosa that may progress locally to involve the underlying submucosa and muscular layer, eventually invading adjacent structures such as the tracheobronchial tree, recurrent laryngeal nerve, thoracic aorta, or diaphragm (fig 1). Fig 1 Layers of the oesophageal …

Topical negative pressure is widely used in the management of superficial wounds. The use of this technology in the management of oesophageal perforations is becoming increasingly common. This systematic review aims to capture available evidence about its use in this setting. Medline and Embase were searched using MeSH terms and free text: esophageal perforation; esophageal injury; vacuum assisted closure; vacuum therapy device; esophagus; wounds penetrating; esophageal perforation; wound healing; negative pressure wound therapy. Searches were carried out between April and November 2015. Case series, cohort trials and controlled trials were included. Additional studies were found by hand searching reference lists. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria with 180 patients. Nine of the studies were case series and two were retrospective comparisons of negative pressure with stents or clips. Healing of the perforation occurred in 163/179 patients and the overall mortality was 12.8%. Compared with published data on mortality from oesophageal perforation, the application of negative pressure appears to be beneficial. The studies are, however, limited to case series and retrospective cohort studies. The number of patients in each study is small and in the absence of randomized trials demonstrating a lack of bias firm conclusions cannot be made.

Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, with little improvement in outcomes in recent years. Surgery maintains its pivotal role in cure, but this involves two or three compartment dissection with associated high risks. Chiefly, pulmonary complications following surgery are most common, and can be life-threatening. As a consequence, minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy have been performed with improving efficacy and equivalent oncological outcomes. This is a review of the pertinent literature regarding these techniques. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:731-735. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently there are two surgical options for potentially curable patients (i.e. people with non-metastatic gastric cancer), laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, it is not clear whether one of these options is superior. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. In particular, we planned to investigate the effects by patient groups, such as cancer stage, anaesthetic risk, and body mass index (BMI), and by intervention methods, such as method of anastomosis, type of gastrectomy and laparoscopic or laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) until September 2015. We also screened reference lists from included trials. Selection criteria Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full text articles for selected references. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful. Main results In total, 2794 participants were randomised in 13 trials included in this review. All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (which included 53 participants) did not contribute any data to this review. A total of 213 participants were excluded in the remaining trials after randomisation, leaving a total of 2528 randomised participants for analysis, with 1288 undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and 1240 undergoing open gastrectomy. All the participants were suitable for major surgery. There was no difference in the proportion of participants who died within thirty days of treatment between laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/1188: adjusted proportion = 0.6% (based on meta-analysis)) and open gastrectomy (4/1447: 0.3%) (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.10; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; participants = 2335; studies = 11; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence). There were no events in either group for short-term recurrence (participants = 103; studies = 3), proportion requiring blood transfusion (participants = 66; studies = 2), and proportion with positive margins at histopathology (participants = 28; studies = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, time to return to normal activity or time to return to work. The differences in long-term mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; participants = 195; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), serious adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/216: adjusted proportion = 3.6%) versus open gastrectomy (13/216: 6%) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; participants = 432; studies = 8; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), long-term recurrence (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 162; studies = 4; very low quality evidence), adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (204/268: adjusted proportion = 16.1%) versus open gastrectomy (253/1222: 20.7%) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01; participants = 2490; studies = 11; I2 = 38%; very low quality evidence), quantity of perioperative blood transfused (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.38; participants = 143; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.82 days, 95% CI -3.72 to 0.07; participants = 319; studies = 6; I2 = 83%; very low quality evidence), and number of lymph nodes harvested (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.25; participants = 472; studies = 9; I2 = 40%; very low quality evidence) were imprecise. There was no alteration in the interpretation of the results in any of the subgroups. Authors' conclusions Based on low quality evidence, there is no difference in short-term mortality between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Based on very low quality evidence, there is no evidence for any differences in short-term or long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, the data are sparse, and the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting that significant benefits or harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy cannot be ruled out. Several trials are currently being conducted and interim results of these trials have been included in this review. These trials need to perform intention-to-treat analysis to ensure that the results are reliable and report the results according to the CONSORT Statement.

BackgroundSurgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy.Search methodsWe electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.Selection criteriaWe considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review.Data collection and analysisThree review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analyses.Main resultsWe found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non-randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes.The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short-term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long-term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short-term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long-term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5).The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post-operative dysphagia, health-related quality of life, time-to-return to normal activity (return to pre-operative mobility without caregiver support), or time-to-return to work.Authors' conclusionsThere are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy.

Background Gallbladder perforation is a serious complication of acute cholecystitis. Its management has evolved considerably since its classification by Niemeier in 1934. This review summarises the evidence surrounding the natural progression of this condition and potential problems with Niemeier's classification, and proposes a management algorithm for the more complex type II perforation. Methods Data from a retrospective case series and a systematic review were combined. The case series included all patients with gallbladder perforations from 2004 to 2008 at a British teaching hospital. The systematic review searched for gallbladder perforation using the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library (2011 Issue 4) databases, as well as recent conference abstracts. The outcome data were analysed using SPSS version 15. No adjustments were made for multiple testing. Results 198 patients (including 19 patients from the present series) with a mean age of 62.1+/−9.7 years and male gender proportion of 55.4% (range 33.3–76.7%) were included. The most common gallbladder perforations were type II (median 46.2%, range 7.4–83.3%), followed by type I (median 40.6%, range 16.7–70.0%) and type III (median 10.1%, range 0–48.1%). Perforation was associated with cholelithiasis in 86.6% (range 78.9–90.6%) of patients, and the overall median mortality rate was 10.8% (range 0–12.5%). Male gender was weakly associated with mortality ( p = 0.089) but age ( p = 0.877) and cholelithiasis ( p = 0.425) were not. Mortality did not vary significantly with perforation type. Conclusions Gallbladder perforation should be reported according to the original Neimeier's classification to avoid heterogeneity in data (e.g. varying rates of perforation types). The algorithm proposed in this study aims to guide the management of complex type II gallbladder perforations to minimise subsequent morbidity and mortality.

Prophylactic drainage of the peritoneal space after major surgery is widely practised despite evidence against its efficacy. We describe the case of a 56-year-old woman who underwent a converted cholecystectomy and whose correctly sited abdominal drain resulted in the formation of a biloma between the external and internal oblique musculature. Subsequent leakage from the biloma into the abdominal cavity presented as peritonitis days after surgery, necessitating an emergency laparotomy. This case represents the first reported description of an abdominal wall biloma as a complication of post-cholecystectomy abdominal drainage. The evidence surrounding prophylactic drainage is discussed.

Summary points Age standardised mortality rates for gastric cancer are 14.3 per 100 000 in men and 6.9 per 100 000 in women worldwide.1 Incidence shows clear regional and sex variations—rates are highest in eastern Asia, eastern Europe, and South America and lowest in northern and southern Africa.1 Early diagnosis is crucial because of the possibility of early metastasis to the liver, pancreas, omentum, oesophagus, bile ducts, and regional and distant lymph nodes.2 Using evidence from large randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, cohort studies, and case-control studies this review aims to outline preventive strategies, highlight the presenting features of gastric cancer, and guide generalists in early diagnosis, referral, and treatment. #### Sources and selection criteria We searched PubMed to identify peer reviewed original articles, meta-analyses, and reviews. Search terms were gastric cancer, cancer of the stomach, gastric adenocarcinoma, gastro-oesophageal cancer, gastric neoplasm, and neoplasm of the stomach. We considered only those papers that were written in English, published within the past 10 years, and which described studies that had adequate scientific validity. Gastric …

The Angelchik prosthesis is an incomplete doughnut-shaped device composed of silicone elastomer used in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). It is used to encircle the lower oesophagus at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ). The ease of the operation led to the insertion of over 25,000 such prostheses world-wide. However, a variety of major complications including intractable dysphagia, prosthesis migration and gastric erosion required a quarter of these devices to be removed. Development of adenocarcinoma in patients with Angelchik prosthesis is a rare occurrence. This article describes two patients who developed adenocarcinoma above their prosthesis and whose cardio-oesophagectomy was technically challenging due to the formation of a dense inflammatory capsule around the prosthesis. Our surgical approach to curative oesophageal resection with the Angelchik prosthesis in situ is also discussed.

Background: Post surgical quality of life (QOL) plays an important role in the decision making process for patients. This study evaluated the subjective opinion of those that underwent Nissen fundoplication to correct their symptoms of hiatus hernia. This study was to evaluate the quality of life and symptomatology before and after in those patients that underwent Nissen fundoplication over an 8-year period. Methods: A questionnaire that graded the severity of symptoms and quality of life pre- and post-operatively was sent out to those patients that had undergone Nissen fundoplication. Results: After the operation the symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation, burping and difficulty lying down were markedly decreased (P < 0.0001). There was however an increased incidence of flatulence associated with the procedure (P < 0.0001). Despite this the quality of life was significantly increased in those that underwent Nissen fundoplication (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Nissen Fundoplication has a positive impact on quality of life and is effective in reducing symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation, burping and difficulty lying down associated with a hiatus hernia. There is however an increase in the incidence of flatulence associated with the procedure. In spite of this, 94% of patients would recommend the procedure to someone else.

This book covers the diagnosis and treatment of one of the most common cancers worldwide. The 14 chapters, starting with the aetiology of hepatocellular cancer, are written largely by doctors working at the University of Pittsburgh Starzl Transplant Institute. The Liver Cancer Center there has seen over 3500 new cases in the last 15 years and one would, therefore, expect the book to have an authoritative tone – which it has. The topic in each chapter is covered in great detail and is extremely well referenced. Unfortunately, the editing has not been rigorous enough. For example, epidemiology of the disease is repeated in many of the chapters almost as if each was meant to stand on its own. The detail on molecular mechanisms is such that even the specialist would require a reference book to understand it fully, yet the chapter on medical treatment contains long lists of presenting symptoms, a curious inclusion in a book that is likely to be read by the super-specialist. Editorial laxity applies also to the illustrations. One plate reproducing a picture from radiotherapy planning software in black and white is rendered meaningless as the caption mentions colours. Furthermore, in the chapter on interventional radiology there are seven plates depicting the preparation of Gelfoam®, a common procedure for an interventional radiologist. The best chapters are towards the end, covering the controversial area of indications for transplantation and providing experience-based solutions to several difficult scenarios. This book will provide the hepatobiliary specialist with an up-to-date and authoritative guide to the management of hepatocellular cancer.

Aim: Despite advances in imaging techniques, the accuracy of preoperative radiological staging for potentially operable oesophagogastric cancer is poor; peritoneal and/or metastatic disease have been identified by staging laparoscopy in up to 50% of patients with a negative preoperative imaging. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been recently shown as a prognostic factor in gastric and esophageal cancers. The aim of the current retrospective analysis was to evaluate the association between NLR and the presence of peritoneal or metastatic involvement on staging laparoscopy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with early gastric and lower esophagus adenocarcinoma that were referred for staging laparoscopy to multidisciplinary team in the last two years in University College Hospital, London. Clinical and pathologic data were collected. Complete blood count was performed preceding staging laparoscopy. The NLR was calculated by dividing the absolute neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count; a high NLR was defined ≥3.28, based on a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. We evaluated the predictive power of a high NLR for a positive staging laparoscopy. Results: 117 patients were available for analysis. The median age was 66.7 years; 87 (74.4%) were male. 44% of the tumors were located at the GOJ, 18% were oesophageal and 38% were gastric. Most of the tumors were grade III (78%), the rest were grade II (22%). All patients performed a staging laparoscopy, 25 (21.4%) of them were found to have peritoneal or metastatic disease. The NLR ranged from 0.85 to 7.04, with a mean value of 2.7. NLR ≥3.28 was an independent predicting factor for the discovery of peritoneal and/or metastatic disease on staging laparoscopy (OR 3.9, 95%CI: 1.54 – 9.86, p = 0.005). The median value of NLR was significantly higher in patients for whom the laparoscopy had discovered peritoneal or metastatic disease, than in those it had not (3.3 vs. 2.2, p = 0.011). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the NLR may be reliable for predicting the presence of peritoneal or metastatic involvement on staging laparoscopy, in patients with early gastric cancer or lower oesophageal cancer and may contribute to the standard pre-operative work-up. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Recent trials in obese people with diabetes show excellent short term results but long term data are needed