SummaryAims: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of general practitioner (GP) referrals to a hospital Respiratory Medicine clinic which might be suitable for a General Practitioner with a Special Interest (GPwSI) Respiratory Clinic. Method: All GP referral letters to the Respiratory Medicine Department of a teaching hospital, apart from urgent cancer referrals, were identified from two two-week periods. All patient and practice identifications were removed. Two GPs and one Consultant Respiratory Physician assessed each of the anonymised referral letters to determine the patient's suitability to be seen in a GPwSI Respiratory Clinic, assuming such a clinic had a predetermined range of investigative facilities. Results: Out of 96 referrals covering a wide range of respiratory conditions apart from lung cancer, 22 (23%) were considered by all assessors to be suitable for a GPwSI clinic, and there was full agreement that 40 referrals (42%) were unsuitable. The other 34 referrals (35%) had varying degrees of agreement on suitability. The largest groups of patient referrals considered suitable for a GPwSI clinic were those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or cough as the main presenting clinical problem. The commonest groups considered unsuitable were referrals of patients with an abnormal chest radiograph, haemoptysis, or possible interstitial lung disease. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 1603 443300; fax: +44 (0) C o p y r ig h t G e n e r a l P r a c t ic e A ir w a y s G r o u p R e p r o d u c t io n p r o h ib it e dThe proportion of general practitioner referrals to a hospital Respiratory Medicine clinic 315Conclusion: This small study has shown that at least a fifth of GP referrals to a hospital Respiratory Medicine clinic could be seen in a suitably resourced GPwSI clinic, with consequent reductions in hospital outpatient waiting lists and improved accessibility for patients. This finding will be of interest to potential commissioners of GPwSI services especially with the advent of Practice-based Commissioning.

BACKGROUND: Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract is a sphincter-preserving technique for the treatment of anal fistulas. The BioLIFT modification involves the placement of a biologic mesh in the intersphincteric plane. Advocates of this modification state improved healing rates, however evidence for this is lacking, and this approach costs significantly more. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the healing rates of the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract with the BioLIFT. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital from April 2008 to April 2018. PATIENTS: All adult patients with transsphincteric anal fistulas were included. Patients were excluded if they had IBD, more than 1 fistula tract operated on simultaneously, or a previous attempt at repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was primary healing of the fistula tract, and secondary outcomes included overall success, complications, and time to recurrence. RESULTS: There were 119 cases (75 ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract and 44 BioLIFTs). One surgeon performed 84% of the BioLIFT cases. The primary healing rate was 75.0% versus 58.7% (p = 0.08), and the complication rate was 22.7% versus 17.3% (p = 0.48; BioLIFT vs ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract). After multivariate logistic regression, the BioLIFT had a significantly better healing rate (OR = 2.38 (95% CI, 1.01–5.62); p = 0.048). Median follow-up was 9 versus 29 weeks (BioLIFT vs ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in the time to recurrence (p = 0.48). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective nature, different lengths of follow-up, and varying case numbers between the surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The BioLIFT modification is safe and effective for the treatment of anal fistulas but has a higher cost. This modification warrants additional prospective studies to establish its benefits over the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract procedure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B139. COMPARACIÓN DE LIFT VERSUS BIOLIFT PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DE LA FÍSTULA ANAL TRANSFINTERÉRICA: UN ANÁLISIS RETROSPECTIVO ANTECEDENTES: Ligadura del tracto de la fístula interesfintérica es una técnica para preservación del esfínter en el tratamiento de las fístulas anales. La modificación BioLIFT implica la colocación de una malla biológica en el plano interesfintérico. Protagonistas de la modificación mejoraron las tasas de curación, sin embargo, carecen evidencias definitivas y la técnica eleva costos significativamente. OBJETIVO: Comparar las tasas de curación de ligadura del tracto de la fístula interesfintérica con el BioLIFT. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. AMBIENTE CLINICO: Hospital de atención de tercer nivel desde abril de 2008 hasta abril de 2018. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron todos los pacientes adultos con fístulas anales transfinteréricas. Los pacientes fueron excluidos si tenían enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, más de un tracto fistuloso operado simultáneamente o con un intento previo de reparación. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: El resultado principal fue la curación primaria del tracto fistuloso y los resultados secundarios incluyeron el éxito en general, las complicaciones y tiempo hasta recurrencia. RESULTADOS: Se registraron 119 casos (75 ligaduras del tracto de la fístula interesfintérica y 44 BioLIFT). Un cirujano realizó el 84% de los casos de BioLIFT. La tasa de curación primaria fue del 75.0% vs 58.7%, p = 0.08, y la tasa de complicaciones fue del 22.7% vs 17.3%, p = 0.48 comparando BioLIFT vs ligadura del tracto de la fístula interesfintérica. Después de la regresión logística multivariada, el BioLIFT tuvo una tasa de curación significativamente mejor (OR 2.38 [IC 95% 1.01-5.62], p = 0.048). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 9 vs 29 semanas (BioLIFT vs ligadura del tracto de la fístula interesfintérica). El análisis de Kaplan-Meier no demostró diferencias en el tiempo hasta la recurrencia (p = 0,48). LIMITACIONES: Este estudio estuvo limitado por ser retrospectivo, las diferentes duraciones de seguimiento y el número variable de casos entre los cirujanos. CONCLUSIÓN: La modificación BioLIFT es segura y efectiva para el tratamiento de las fístulas anales pero tiene un costo más alto. Esta modificación amerita más estudios prospectivos para establecer los beneficios sobre ligadura del tracto de la fístula interesfintérica. Consulte Video Resumen en hhttp://links.lww.com/DCR/B139.

No abstract