Search

Objective: The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework Study aimed to combine the intended effects of the 2009/2019 IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) Framework recommendations on evaluating surgical innovation with the vision outlined by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery to provide recommendations for evaluating surgical innovation in low-resource environments., Design: A mixture of methods including an online global survey and semistructured interviews (SSIs). Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using the Framework Method., Participants: Surgeons and surgical researchers from any country., Main Outcome Measures: Findings were used to suggest the nature of adaptations to the IDEAL Framework to address the particular problems of evaluation in low-resource settings., Results: The online survey yielded 66 responses representing experience from 40 countries, and nine individual SSIs were conducted. Most respondents (n=49; 74.2%) had experience evaluating surgical technologies across a range of life cycle stages. Innovation was most frequently adopted based on colleague recommendation or clinical evaluation in other countries. Four themes emerged, centered around: frugal innovation in technological development; evaluating the same technology/innovation in different contexts; additional methodologies important in evaluation of surgical innovation in low/middle-income countries; and support for low-income country researchers along the evaluation pathway., Conclusions: The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework provides suggestions for modified IDEAL recommendations aimed at dealing with the special problems found in this setting. These will require validation in a stakeholder consensus forum, and qualitative assessment in pilot studies. From assisting researchers with identification of the correct evaluation stage, to providing context-specific recommendations relevant to the whole evaluation pathway, this process will aim to develop a comprehensive and applicable set of guidance that will benefit surgical innovation and patients globally., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PM is an editor-in-chief., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to grow globally. Despite this, in the UK and Ireland, it is estimated that over 70% of surgical trainees across all specialities have no access to robot-assisted surgical training (RAST). This study aimed to provide educational stakeholders guidance on a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum (PPCRC) from the perspective of the end user; the surgical trainee. The study was conducted in four Phases: P1: a steering group was formed to review current literature and summarise the evidence, P2: Pan-Specialty Trainee Panel Virtual Classroom Discussion, P3: Accelerated Delphi Process and P4: Formulation of Recommendations. Forty-three surgeons in training representing all surgical specialties and training levels contributed to the three round Delphi process. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as ≥ 80% agreement. There was 100% response from all three rounds. The resulting formulated guidance showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of > 0.8. There was 97.7% agreement that a standardised PPCRC would be advantageous to training and that, independent of speciality, there should be a common approach (95.5% agreement). Consensus was reached in multiple areas: 1. Experience and Exposure, 2. Access and context, 3. Curriculum Components, 4 Target Groups and Delivery, 5. Objective Metrics, Benchmarking and Assessment. Using the Delphi methodology, we achieved multispecialty consensus among trainees to develop and reach content validation for the requirements and components of a PPCRC. This guidance will benefit from further validation following implementation., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The primary aim was to explore the perceived barriers that lower limb amputees and service providers face when accessing or providing rehabilitation services. The secondary aim was to describe the lower limb amputations performed in public hospitals in the Western Area of Sierra Leone in 2018., Materials and Methods: A mixed methodology was employed, involving the collection of amputation data from surgical logbooks and interviews with amputees ( n  = 10) and group discussion and interviews with service providers ( n  = 11)., Results: Of the 37 primary lower limb amputations (49% men, 51% women; median age 56 years; 62% transtibial and 35% transfemoral amputations) 86% were for diabetic and vascular causes. Barriers to accessing services included poor transportation access, high service fees, rural living, gender and a lack of government support. Insufficient funding and supplies, skilled staff shortages and a lack of local training programmes were frequently reported barriers to providing rehabilitation services., Conclusions: A low prioritisation means rehabilitation services are underfunded, resulting in numerous barriers to both accessing and providing amputee rehabilitation services. Subsidised services and an outreach programme may improve access for patients. Increased funding and local training programmes are needed to improve service delivery.Implications for RehabilitationComprehensive and accessible amputee rehabilitation services can enable people with amputations to regain their independence and aid their participation in their community and workplace.There are numerous barriers to both accessing and providing amputee rehabilitation services in the Western Area, Sierra Leone, chiefly financial. We recommend a revised effort by the Sierra Leonean government to implement the progressive policies on disability they have already adopted into law, which will aid the improvement of amputee rehabilitation services. New education and training programmes for all levels of prosthetic and orthotic professions are needed to secure the future of prosthetics and orthotics in Sierra Leone.

Objective: Recent evidence has suggested that an admission neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) of ≥ 5.9 predicts delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The primary aims of this study were to assess reproducibility and to ascertain the predictive ability of NLR on subsequent days postictus. Secondary aims included identification of additional inflammatory markers., Methods: A single-center, retrospective study of all patients aged ≥ 18 years with aSAH between May 2014 and July 2018 was performed. Patient characteristics, DCI incidence, operative features, and outcomes (on discharge and at 3 months postictus) were recorded. C-reactive protein (CRP) and full blood count differentials were recorded on admission and through day 8 postictus or at discharge. In total, 403 patients were included in the final analysis., Results: Ninety-six patients (23.8%) developed DCI with a median time from ictus of 6 days (IQR 3.25-8 days). A platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) cutoff ≥ 157 and CRP cutoff ≥ 27 was used in our cohort. In a multiple binary logistic regression model, after controlling for known DCI predictors, day 2 NLR ≥ 5.9 (OR 2.194, 95% CI 1.099-4.372; p = 0.026), day 1 PLR ≥ 157 (OR 2.398, 95% CI 1.1072-5.361; p = 0.033), day 2 PLR ≥ 157 (OR 2.676, 95% CI 1.344-5.329; p = 0.005), and CRP ≥ 27 on days 3, 4, and 5 were predictive of DCI., Conclusions: The results of this study have confirmed the association between NLR and DCI and have demonstrated the predictive potential of PLR and CRP, suggesting that NLR and PLR at day 2, and CRP from day 3 onward, may be better predictors of DCI than those measurements at the time of ictus.

Objective: To investigate the incidence of LARS in patients undergoing elective anterior resection within the MRC/NIHR ROLARR trial and to explore perioperative variables that might be associated with major LARS., Summary Background Data: Sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery is frequently accompanied by defaecatory dysfunction known as Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). This is distressing for patients and is an unmet clinical challenge., Methods: An international, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing anterior resection within the ROLARR trial was undertaken. Trial participants with restoration of gastrointestinal continuity and free from disease recurrence completed the validated LARS questionnaire between August 2015 and April 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of LARS and secondary outcome was severity (minor versus major)., Results: LARS questionnaires were received from 132/155 (85%) eligible patients. The median time from surgery to LARS assessment was 1065 days (range 174-1655 d). The incidence of LARS was 82.6% (n = 109/132), which was minor in 26/132 (19.7%) and major in 83/132 (62.9%). The most common symptoms were incontinence to flatus (n = 86/132; 65.2%) and defaecatory clustering (88/132; 66.7%). In a multivariate model, predictors of major LARS were: 1 cm decrease in tumor height above the anal verge (OR = 1.290, 95% CI: 1.101,1.511); and an ASA grade greater than 1 (OR = 2.920, 95% CI: 1.239, 6.883). Treatment allocation (laparoscopic vs robotic) did not predict major LARS., Conclusions: LARS is a common after rectal cancer surgery and patients should be appropriately counselled preoperatively, particularly before surgery for low tumors or in comorbid populations., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

This study explores the response to COVID-19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission-to-acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher-responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance-to-publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety-eight of 2,835 COVID-19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID-19 studies were clinical reports ( n = 242; 60.8%). The submission-to-acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3-11) versus 71.5 days (38-106); P < .001] and acceptance-to-publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2-8) versus 22.5 days (4-48·5-; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID-19. Almost all COVID-19 ( n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS ( n = 55; 100%) studies were open-access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID-19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies ( P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one-in-four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement., Key Points: COVID-19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease.Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID-19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision-making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles.Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID-19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak.The majority of both COVID-19 and MERS articles are available open-access., Competing Interests: JB holds an RCS England clinical research fellowship supported by Bowel Cancer UK. DGJ is funded by Bowel Cancer UK and RCS England. SJC holds a Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF‐2018‐11‐049) supported by the National Institute of Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those if the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, Health Education England, or the Department of Health. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors. All coded data will be available at the point of publication. The data and data dictionary will be hosted via Figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12442379. The corresponding author (SJC) attests that all authors had access to study data, takes responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis, and had authority over manuscript preparation and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (© 2020 The Author(s). Learned Publishing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of ALPSP.)

Background: Effective dissemination of technology in global surgery is vital to realize universal health coverage by 2030. Challenges include a lack of human resource, infrastructure and finance. Understanding these challenges, and exploring opportunities and solutions to overcome them, are essential to improve global surgical care., Methods: This review focuses on technologies and medical devices aimed at improving surgical care and training in low- and middle-income countries. The key considerations in the development of new technologies are described, along with strategies for evaluation and wider dissemination. Notable examples of where the dissemination of a new surgical technology has achieved impact are included., Results: Employing the principles of frugal and responsible innovation, and aligning evaluation and development to high scientific standards help overcome some of the challenges in disseminating technology in global surgery. Exemplars of effective dissemination include low-cost laparoscopes, gasless laparoscopic techniques and innovative training programmes for laparoscopic surgery; low-cost and versatile external fixation devices for fractures; the LifeBox pulse oximeter project; and the use of immersive technologies in simulation, training and surgical care delivery., Conclusion: Core strategies to facilitate technology dissemination in global surgery include leveraging international funding, interdisciplinary collaboration involving all key stakeholders, and frugal scientific design, development and evaluation., (© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To assess intra-bursal corticosteroid injections (ICSI) efficacy and duration of action in the management of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). The secondary aim was to identify patient and ultrasound (US) features predictive of treatment response., Materials and Methods: Consecutive prospectively recruited patients undergoing US-guided ICSI therapy for GTPS received baseline pre-injection questionnaires assessing pain at rest and activity, demographics and comorbidities. Baseline US and radiography findings were reported prospectively. Follow-up was performed at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months, and change in pain scores assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Logistic regression examined associations between demographics, US findings, and a clinically significant reduction in pain score (≥50%)., Results: Over 6 months, 127 patients were recruited with a median age of 63.5 years and 90% were female. The greatest pain reduction was between baseline and 6 weeks at activity (median 8 versus 5, p<0.001). The majority of patients noted a reduction in pain score, but the percentage of patients receiving a ≥50% reduction at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months for pain at rest was 41%, 37%, and 36%, respectively. Regression models suggested only gluteus medius bursitis was weakly associated with pain reduction., Conclusion: ICSIs confer a benefit in pain reduction to a large proportion of patients in the short term, but this may not be reduced by a clinically significant amount. This small effect size and lack of predictive imaging features suggests initial management including subsequent steroid injection could be provided without imaging guidance in the majority of cases., (Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement aims to optimize the reporting of systematic reviews. The performance of the PRISMA Statement in improving the reporting and quality of surgical systematic reviews remains unclear., Methods: Systematic reviews published in five high-impact surgical journals between 2007 and 2015 were identified from online archives. Manuscripts blinded to journal, publication year and authorship were assessed according to 27 reporting criteria described by the PRISMA Statement and scored using a validated quality appraisal tool (AMSTAR, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Comparisons were made between studies published before (2007-2009) and after (2011-2015) its introduction. The relationship between reporting and study quality was measured using Spearman's rank test., Results: Of 281 eligible manuscripts, 80 were published before the PRISMA Statement and 201 afterwards. Most manuscripts (208) included a meta-analysis, with the remainder comprising a systematic review only. There was no meaningful change in median compliance with the PRISMA Statement (19 (i.q.r. 16-21) of 27 items before versus 19 (17-22) of 27 after introduction of PRISMA) despite achieving statistical significance (P = 0·042). Better reporting compliance was associated with higher methodological quality (r s  = 0·70, P < 0·001)., Conclusion: The PRISMA Statement has had minimal impact on the reporting of surgical systematic reviews. Better compliance was associated with higher-quality methodology., (© 2016 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Postoperative bowel dysfunction affects quality of life after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, but the extent of the problem is not clearly defined because of inconsistent outcome measures used to characterize the condition., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess variation in the reporting of postoperative bowel dysfunction and to make recommendations for standardization in future studies. If possible, a quantitative synthesis of bowel dysfunction symptoms was planned., Data Sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Library, were queried systematically between 2004 and 2015., Study Selection: The studies selected reported at least 1 component of bowel dysfunction after resection of rectal cancer., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction., Results: Of 5428 studies identified, 234 met inclusion criteria. Widely reported components of bowel dysfunction were incontinence to stool (227/234 (97.0%)), frequency (168/234 (71.8%)), and incontinence to flatus (158/234 (67.5%)). Urgency and stool clustering were reported less commonly, with rates of 106 (45.3%) of 234 and 61 (26.1%) of 234. Bowel dysfunction measured as a primary outcome was associated with better reporting (OR = 3.49 (95% CI, 1.99-6.23); p < 0.001). Less than half of the outcomes were assessed using a dedicated research tool (337/720 (46.8%)), and the remaining descriptive measures were infrequently defined (56/383 (14.6%))., Limitations: Heterogeneity in the reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction precluded pooling of results and limited interpretation., Conclusions: Considerable variation exists in the reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction. These inconsistencies preclude reliable estimates of incidence and meta-analysis. A broadly accepted outcome measure may address this deficit in future studies.