Dr Peter Pockney

© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Background: Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods: A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student- and trainee-led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre-specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results: A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57¿75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1¿3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non-selective cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion: NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

© 2018 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Introduction: Previous studies have shown single CRP measurements at time of presentation to have limited predictive benefit for appendicitis. Our objective was to determine the diagnostic utility of serial CRP measurements (to determine CRP velocity [CRPv]) in patients with right iliac fossa (RIF) pain. Methods: A single-centre prospective observational study was conducted on adult patients admitted with RIF pain. CRP was measured on admission, at midnight, and the following morning. Appendicitis was diagnosed on histopathology, or diagnostic imaging in non-operatively managed patients. Therapeutic interventions included all appropriate operative procedures and effective non-operative treatment with antibiotics. Logistic regression was used to generate predictors of therapeutic intervention, and then used to create a new risk score incorporating CRPv. Results: 98 of 112 (87.5%) participants had complete CRP data. 58 patients met the criteria for appendicitis (59.2%). Most patients presented with intermediate Modified Alvarado Scores (MAS) 5¿6 (40.8%) or Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Scores (AIRS) 5¿8 (49%). Our risk score had an AUROC of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81¿0.96) in predicting therapeutic intervention. This score was superior to MAS, AIRS, and single admission biomarker measurements. Patients with an increasing CRPv had 14 times the odds (OR 14.07, 95% CI 0.63¿315.2) of complicated appendicitis, and no cases of complicated appendicitis were observed in patients with a flat CRPv. Conclusions: CRP velocity is superior to single CRP at predicting intervention. Our v-Score shows promise as a decision making-aide by predicting the need for surgical intervention in RIF pain. A flat CRPv identifies a group of patients with a very low risk of complicated appendicitis.

© 2018 Elsevier Inc. Background: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as an excellent candidate for the future of liquid biopsies for many cancers. There has been growing interest in blood-based liquid biopsy because of the potential of ctDNA to produce a noninvasive test that can be used for: the diagnosis of colorectal cancer, monitoring therapy response, and providing information on overall prognosis. The aim of this review was to collate and explore the current evidence regarding ctDNA as a screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: A systematic review of published articles in English over the past 20 y was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases on May 23, 2017. After a full-text review, a total of 69 studies were included. Two assessment tools were used to review and compare the methodological quality of these studies. Results: Among the 69 studies included, 17 studies reviewed total cfDNA, whereas six studies looked at the DNA integrity index and 15 focused on ctDNA. There were a total of 40 studies that reviewed methylated cfDNA with 19 of these focussing specifically on SEPT9. Conclusions: The results of this review indicate that methylated epigenetic ctDNA markers are perhaps the most promising candidates for a blood-based CRC-screening modality using cell-free (cf) DNA. Methylated cfDNA appears to be less specific for CRC compared to ctDNA; however, they have demonstrated good sensitivity for early-stage CRC. Further research is required to determine which methylated cfDNA markers are the most accurate when applied to large cohorts of patients. In addition, reliable comparison of results across multiple studies would benefit from standardization of methodology for DNA extraction and PCR techniques in the future.

© 2017 The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Inc. BACKGROUND: Lower GI hemorrhage is a common source of morbidity and mortality. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic that has been shown to reduce blood loss in a variety of clinical conditions. Information regarding the use of tranexamic acid in treating lower GI hemorrhage is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to determine the clinical efficacy of tranexamic acid when used for lower GI hemorrhage. DESIGN: This was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary referral university hospital in Australia. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients aged >18 years with lower GI hemorrhage requiring hospital admission from November 2011 to January 2014 were screened for trial eligibility (N = 265). INTERVENTIONS: A total of 100 patients were recruited after exclusions and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either tranexamic acid or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was blood loss as determined by reduction in hemoglobin levels. The secondary outcomes were transfusion rates, transfusion volume, intervention rates for bleeding, length of hospital stay, readmission, and complication rates. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups with respect to hemoglobin drop (11 g/L of tranexamic acid vs 13 g/L of placebo; p = 0.9445). There was no difference with respect to transfusion rates (14/49 tranexamic acid vs 16/47 placebo; p = 0.661), mean transfusion volume (1.27 vs 1.93 units; p = 0.355), intervention rates (7/49 vs 13/47; p = 0.134), length of hospital stay (4.67 vs 4.74 d; p = 0.934), readmission, or complication rates. No complications occurred as a direct result of tranexamic acid use. LIMITATIONS: A larger multicenter trial may be required to determine whether there are more subtle advantages with tranexamic acid use in some of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid does not appear to decrease blood loss or improve clinical outcomes in patients presenting with lower GI hemorrhage in the context of this trial. see Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A453.

Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Objective: This study aims to report short-term clinical and oncological outcomes from the international transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) registry for benign and malignant rectal pathology. Background: TaTME is the latest minimally invasive transanal technique pioneered to facilitate difficult pelvic dissections. Outcomes have been published from small cohorts, but larger series can further assess the safety and efficacy of taTME in the wider surgical population. Methods: Data were analyzed from 66 registered units in 23 countries. The primary endpoint was "good-quality TME surgery." Secondary endpoints were short-term adverse events. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of poor specimen outcome. Results: A total of 720 consecutively registered cases were analyzed comprising 634 patients with rectal cancer and 86 with benign pathology. Approximately, 67% were males with mean BMI 26.5 kg/m 2. Abdominal or perineal conversion was 6.3% and 2.8%, respectively. Intact TME specimens were achieved in 85%, with minor defects in 11% and major defects in 4%. R1 resection rate was 2.7%. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 0.5% and 32.6% respectively. Risk factors for poor specimen outcome (suboptimal TME specimen, perforation, and/or R1 resection) on multivariate analysis were positive CRM on staging MRI, low rectal tumor <2 cm from anorectal junction, and laparoscopic transabdominal posterior dissection to <4 cm from anal verge. Conclusions: TaTME appears to be an oncologically safe and effective technique for distal mesorectal dissection with acceptable short-term patient outcomes and good specimen quality. Ongoing structured training and the upcoming randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the technique further.