The proportion of patients who had postoperative stoma-related complications did not improve with time, but the rate of parastomal hernias in both groups and night-time emptying in the ileostomy group was worse with time. Ileostomy patients had a higher incidence of skin excoriation, leakage, soiling, and night-time emptying, and they should receive additional support.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Summary Background 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03471494 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

Summary Introduction:  The UK government target expects all suspected cancer patients to be seen within 2 weeks of referral made by general practitioners. This has significant impact on the workload for colorectal surgeons. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of this colorectal service. Method:  A retrospective study of all patients referred to a 2‐week wait colorectal clinic over a 12‐month period was assessed, documenting diagnosis and staging. Comparison of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) presenting via other routes in the same period was made. Results:  Over the 12‐month period, all 1100 patients were seen in the 2‐week wait clinic; 938 (85%) patients fulfilled the referral criteria, but only 81 (7.3%) were diagnosed with cancer. Conversely, 136 CRC patients presented to the surgeons via urgent referrals (n = 86), emergency (n = 13), routine colorectal clinic (n = 19) and bowel screening (n = 18). The 2‐week cohort had more advanced staging than those referred by standard letter and pilot screening. Cancers in the symptomatic population are predominantly Dukes’ B and Dukes’ C whereas in pilot screening group predominantly Dukes’ A. Conclusion:  The effectiveness of 2‐week wait referral was poor, confirming its lack of validity. Further work is required to offer primary care stricter inclusion and exclusion referral criteria.

Consequent to recent advances in surgical techniques and management, survival rate has increased substantially over the last 25 years, particularly in colorectal cancer patients. However, post-operative morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer vary widely across the country. Therefore, standardised outcome measures are emphasised not only for professional accountability, but also for comparison between treatment units and regions. In a heterogeneous population, the use of crude mortality as an outcome measure for patients undergoing surgery is simply misleading. Meaningful comparisons, however, require accurate risk stratification of patients being analysed before conclusions can be reached regarding the outcomes recorded. Sub-specialised colorectal surgical units usually dedicated to more complex and high-risk operations. The need for accurate risk prediction is necessary in these units as both mortality and morbidity often are tools to justify the practice of high-risk surgery. The Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) is a system for classifying patients in the intensive care unit. However, APACHE score was considered too complex for general surgical use. The American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade has been considered useful as an adjunct to informed consent and for monitoring surgical performance through time. ASA grade is simple but too subjective. The Physiological & Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and its variant Portsmouth POSSUM (P-POSSUM) were devised to predict outcomes in surgical patients in general, taking into account of the variables in the case-mix. POSSUM has two parts, which include assessment of physiological parameters and operative scores. There are 12 physiological parameters and 6 operative measures. The physiological parameters are taken at the time of surgery. Each physiological parameter or operative variable is sub-divided into three or four levels with an exponentially increasing score. However, POSSUM and P-POSSUM over-predict mortality in patients who have had colorectal surgery. Discrepancies in these models have led to the introduction of a specialty-specific POSSUM: the ColoRectal POSSUM (CR-POSSUM). CR-POSSUM only uses six physiological parameters and four operative measures for prediction of mortality. It is much simplified to allow ease of use.