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.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence.METHODS: Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory.RESULTS: Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700.CONCLUSIONS: A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials.ETHICAL APPROVAL: 11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

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.

Introduction: Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation.Materials and Methods: A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices.HighlightsThis work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.

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 In 2002 a pyrocarbon interphalangeal joint implant was granted Food and Drug Administration approval with limited evidence of effectiveness. It is important to understand device use and outcomes since this implant entered clinical practice in order to establish incremental evidence, appropriate study design and reporting. This systematic review summarised and appraised studies reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. Methods Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception to November 2020. All study designs reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in humans were included. Data extracted included information about study characteristics, patient selection, regulatory (gaining research ethics approval) and governance issues (reporting of conflicting interests), operator and centre experience, technique description and outcome reporting. Descriptive and narrative summaries were reported. Results From 4316 abstracts, 210 full-text articles were screened. A total of 38 studies and 1434 (1–184) patients were included. These consisted of three case reports, 24 case series, 10 retrospective cohort studies and one randomised trial. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated in 25 (66%) studies. Most studies (n = 27, 71%) gained research ethics approval to be conducted. Six studies reported conflicting interests. Experience of operating surgeons was reported in nine (24%) and caseload volume in five studies. There was no consensus about the optimal surgical approach. Technical aspects of implant placement were reported frequently (n = 32) but the detail provided varied widely. Studies reported multiple, heterogenous outcomes. The most commonly reported outcome was range of motion (n = 37). Conclusions This systematic review identified inconsistencies in how studies describing the early use and update of an innovative procedure were reported. Incremental evidence was lacking, risking the implant being adopted without robust evaluation. This review adds to evidence highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation of how implantable medical devices are used in practice following licencing.

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.

AIM Abdominal surgery sometimes necessitates the creation of a stoma, which can cause future complications including parastomal hernia (PSH), an incisional hernia adjacent to and related to the stoma. PSH affects approximately 40% of patients within 2 years of stoma formation. Complications of PSH reduce a patient's quality of life and can be severe (e.g. bowel obstruction). PSHs are difficult to manage and can recur after surgical repair. Therefore, it is very important to prevent a PSH. Surgeons create stomas in different ways and both patient and surgical factors are believed to influence the development of PSH. The aim of the CIPHER study is to investigate the influence of different surgical techniques on the development of PSH. METHOD The UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study) aims to recruit 4000 patients undergoing elective or expedited surgery with the intention of forming an ileostomy or colostomy, irrespective of the primary indication for the planned surgery. For each patient, surgeons will describe their methods of trephine formation, mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine, use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site and wound closure. The primary outcome will be incident PSH during follow-up, defined as symptoms of PSH (custom-designed questionnaire) and anatomical PSH, ascertained by independent reading of usual care CT scans. Secondary outcomes will include surgical site infection, the Comprehensive Complication Index, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-12), PSH repair and use of NHS resources. RESULTS Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. All publications relating to the results of CIPHER will use a corporate authorship, 'The CIPHER Study Investigators' with named writing committee members. CONCLUSION The CIPHER study will be the first to investigate detailed surgical methods of stoma formation in a large, representative cohort of patients with a range of primary indications, both cancer and noncancer.

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.

IntroductionSurgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients.Methods and analysisWe are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months.Ethics and disseminationThis study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber – South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberISRCTN10378861.

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.