Search

Aim: Pelvic exenteration surgery remains the only curative option for recurrent rectal cancer. Microscopically involved surgical margins (R1) are associated with a higher risk of local recurrence and decreased survival. Our study aimed to develop a post hoc multidisciplinary case conference review and investigate its potential for identifying areas for improvement. Method: Patients who underwent pelvic exenteration surgery for recurrent rectal cancer with R1 resections at a tertiary referral centre between April 2014 and January 2016 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with non‐rectal cancers or who underwent palliative surgery were excluded. Cases, imaging and histopathology were evaluated by a dedicated panel including colorectal surgeons, an abdominal radiologist and a gastrointestinal pathologist. Results: R1 resections were reported in 32 of 110 pelvic exenterations. Patients with other tumours were excluded and one patient had a palliative resection. Nine male patients with 11 exenterations were included with a median age of 56 years. All patients had positive soft tissue margins, and one patient also had an involved bony margin. Failures were due to (interdisciplinary) communication problems, specific management of tumour biology (multifocality, spiculated tumours), which can lead to radiological undercalling, and inadequate surgical technical planning. In hindsight, surgery would have been withheld from one patient. Conclusion: A retrospective multidisciplinary case evaluation of pelvic exenteration patients with involved surgical margins led to a list of recommendations which included the need to plan for wider surgical soft tissue resections and improvement in interdisciplinary communication. Lessons learned may increase clear margin rates in future resections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radical surgery is the mainstream treatment for patients presenting with advanced primary or recurrent gastrointestinal cancers; however, the rate of postoperative complications is exceptionally high. The current evidence suggests that improving patients' fitness during the preoperative period may enhance postoperative recovery. Thus, the primary aim of this study is to establish the effectiveness of prehabilitation with a progressive, individualised, preoperative exercise and education program compared to usual care alone in reducing the proportion of patients with postoperative in-hospital complications. The secondary aims are to investigate the effectiveness of the preoperative intervention on reducing the length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, improving quality of life and morbidity, and reducing costs., Methods: This is a multi-centre, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, comparative, randomised controlled trial. A total of 172 patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, cytoreductive surgery, oesophagectomy, hepatectomy, gastrectomy or pancreatectomy will be recruited. Participants will be randomly allocated to prehabilitation with a preoperative exercise and education program (intervention group), delivered over 4 to 8 weeks before surgery by community physiotherapists/exercise physiologists, or usual care alone (control group). The intervention will comprise 12 to 24 individualised, progressive exercise sessions (including aerobic/anaerobic, resistance, and respiratory exercises), recommendations of home exercises (16 to 32 sessions), and daily incidental physical activity advice. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, the week prior to surgery, during the hospital stay, and on the day of discharge from hospital, and 1 month and 1 months postoperatively. The primary outcome will be the development of in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes include the length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, quality of life, postoperative morbidity and costs., Discussion: The successful completion of this trial will provide robust and high-quality evidence on the efficacy of a preoperative community- and home-based exercise and education intervention on important postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing major gastrointestinal cancer surgery., Trial Registration: This trial was registered prospectively with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12621000617864 ) on 24th May 2021., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: People with serious mental illness (SMI) have significantly worse surgical outcomes compared to the general population. There are many contributing factors to this complex issue, however consideration of the surgical experience from the patient's own perspective has never been undertaken. This lack of understanding prevents the provision of truly patient centred care and may limit the impact of potential improvement initiatives. Therefore this study aims to describe and better understand the surgical experience from the perspective of patients with SMI., Methods: Within this qualitative study, semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews were conducted between August 2019 - June 2020, with 10 consenting participants with SMI who had surgery in the previous 2 years. A thematic analysis approach was used to explore both the positive and negative aspects of the participant's surgical experience commencing from pre-operative consultation to hospital discharge and follow-up., Results: Four main themes and related subthemes emerged including i) the perceived lack of mental ill health recognition, ii) highly variable patient and clinician interactions, iii) the impact of healthcare services, and iv) strategies for improvement., Conclusion: Surgical patients with SMI want to be treated like everyone else whilst still having their mental ill health acknowledged and proactively managed despite this rarely occurring, which is valuable information for all surgical teams to consider and learn from. Participants were able to describe several readily implementable strategies to potentially improve their care and overall surgical experience, and as such highlight considerable opportunities for these to be tested and evaluated for this underserved patient group.

Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare the following other interests: none. Further details of BMJ policy on financial interests is here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests