Aim Management of anastomotic leakage (AL) following rectal resection has evolved with increasing use of less invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to review the management of AL following restorative rectal cancer resection in a tertiary referral centre. Method A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. The primary outcome was successful management of AL. The secondary outcome was the impact of AL on oncological outcome. Results Five hundred and two restorative rectal cancer resections were performed during the study period. The incidence of AL was 9.9% (n = 50). AL occurred more commonly following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 31/252, 12.3%) than in those who did not receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 19/250, 7.6%; P = 0.107); however, this was not statistically significant. Successful minimally invasive drainage was achieved in 28 patients (56%, radiological n = 24, surgical n = 4). Trans‐rectal drainage was the most common drainage method (n = 14). The median duration of drainage was longer in the neoadjuvant group (27 vs 18 days). Surgical intervention was required in 11 patients, with anastomotic takedown and end‐colostomy formation was most commonly required. Successful management of AL with drainage (maintenance of the anastomosis without the need for further intervention) was achieved in 26 of the 28 patients. There were no significant differences in overall or disease‐free survival when patients with AL were compared with patients without AL (69.4% vs 72.6%, P = 0.99 and 78.7% vs 71.3%, P = 0.45, respectively). Conclusion In selected patients, AL following restorative rectal resection can be effectively controlled using minimally invasive radiological or surgical drainage without the need for further intervention.

Breast J. 2020;26:705-710. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tbj | 705

No abstract

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries.

Emergency Laparotomy (EL) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Variation in practice and patient outcomes for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy has been identified through the UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA), with 30-day mortality ranging from 11 to 15%. A correlation between preoperative haemodynamic parameters and increased postoperative mortality has been demonstrated by both NELA and other observational studies. The association between intraoperative haemodynamic parameters and overall postoperative morbidity has not been evaluated in EL patients. The aims of our study were to investigate the association between perioperative haemodynamic and logistic parameters and postoperative morbidity in a tertiary referral university hospital; and to compare our outcomes to that of the NELA data. A retrospective analysis correlating a range of perioperative parameters with Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) among 86 patients who underwent EL during 2018 was conducted. Mean age was 64 years (SD 16). Median CCI was 27 [9–45], and 30-day mortality was 11.7%. Several intraoperative parameters correlated with CCI on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, ASA status (P = 0.005) and unplanned escalation to postoperative intensive care (P = 0.03) were independently associated with CCI. Our study shows a correlation between ASA status and unplanned escalation to ITU with increased postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We did not demonstrate an independent correlation between intraoperative parameters and postoperative morbidity. These findings warrant confirmation in a larger scale observational study. Outcomes in our institution are comparable to those seen in the NELA.