PURPOSE Emergency laparotomy (EL) encompasses a high-risk group of operations, which are increasingly performed on a heterogeneous population of patients, making preoperative risk assessment potentially difficult. The UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) recently produced a risk predictive tool for EL that has not yet been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate and potentially improve the NELA tool for mortality prediction after EL. METHODOLOGY We reviewed computer and paper records of EL patients from May 2012 to June 2017 at Middlemore Hospital (New Zealand). The inclusion criteria mirrored the UK NELA. We examined the NELA, Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II), and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs risk predictive tools for 30-day mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess calibration, and the c statistic, to evaluate discrimination (accuracy) of the tools. We added the modified frailty index (mFI) and nutrition to improve the accuracy of risk predictive tools. RESULTS A total of 758 patients met the inclusion criteria, with an observed 30-day mortality of 7.9%. The NELA was the only well calibrated tool, with predicted 30-day mortality of 7.4% (p = 0.22). When combined with mFI and nutritional status, the c statistic for NELA improved from 0.83 to 0.88. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs, APACHE-II, and P-POSSUM had lower c statistics, albeit also showing an improvement (0.84, 0.81, and 0.74, respectively). CONCLUSION We have demonstrated the NELA tool to be most predictive of mortality after EL. The NELA tool would therefore facilitate preoperative risk assessment and operative decision making most precisely in EL. Future research should consider adding mFI and nutritional status to the NELA tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV; Retrospective observational cohort study.

No abstract

Aim Haemorrhoidal disease can severely affect a patient's quality of life. Its classification is commonly based on morphology of the degree of prolapse; however, this does not take into account the symptoms and impact on the quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most appropriate instruments that classify the severity of disease according to symptoms. Method A PRISMA-compliant search was conducted in December 2019 to identify studies that described the validation of a haemorrhoidal symptom score. The measurement properties of the scoring systems were assessed based on the consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic reviews for patient-reported outcome measures. Results A total of 5288 articles were identified, with five articles included. Three studies developed a scoring system based on a set of core symptoms for a cohort of patients and validated the score against treatment outcomes. One study developed a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire based on symptoms to evaluate disease burden. One study combined both quality of life and symptom measures and tested measurement properties on two cohorts of patients. Only one study demonstrated satisfactory valid, reliable and responsive measurement criteria. Conclusion A single study demonstrated sufficient quality in measurement properties to be recommended for clinical use. Further studies in this area should utilize consensus-based standards for designing and reporting validation research to ensure that the appropriate evidence base is acquired if any further patient-reported outcome measures are to be recommended.

Both topical and oral metronidazole reduce post-operative pain without an increase in complication rates and result in an earlier return to normal activity. Further work is required to determine which the optimum route of administration is.

Background Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a common weight loss operation that is increasingly being managed on an outpatient or overnight stay basis. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after LSG. Methods A systematic review utilizing preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language from inception to September 2018 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anesthetic, and surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. Results Significant heterogeneity was identified in the 18 RCTs included in this systematic review. Gabapentinoids and transversus abdominis plane blocks reduced LSG postoperative pain. There was limited procedure‐specific evidence of analgesic effects for acetaminophen, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, dexamethasone, magnesium, and tramadol in this setting. Inconsistent evidence was found in the studies investigating alpha‐2‐agonists. No evidence was found for intraperitoneal local anesthetic administration or single‐port laparoscopy. Conclusions The literature to recommend an optimal analgesic regimen for LSG is limited. The pragmatic view supports acetaminophen and a non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug, with opioids as rescue analgesics. Gabapentinoids should be used with caution, as they may amplify opioid‐induced respiratory depression. Although transversus abdominis plane blocks reduced pain, port‐site infiltration may be considered instead, as it is a simple and inexpensive approach that provides adequate somatic blockade. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.