EP.FRI.704 Emergency colorectal surgery outcomes within a non-specialist split site service – a retrospective cohort study

Aims Within this region, Upper GI and Colorectal subspecialties are located at separate hospitals. This study aims to determine outcomes of critically unwell patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery off-site at the non-colorectal specialist centre. Methods An observational retrospective study of emergency colorectal laparotomies at a major acute teaching hospital (non-colorectal specialist centre) between January 2016 and August 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included rate of primary anastomosis, complications and overall mortality. The NELA predicted mortality risk was obtained from notes or retrospectively calculated. Subgroup analysis of colorectal surgeon involvement was performed. Results One hundred and eighteen patients were included (median age 64 years, 55% female). The median NELA mortality score was 5.8% (IQR 1.9 – 14.7%). The 30-day mortality rate was 22% (26/118). The rate of primary anastomosis was 31%. Patients having an anastomosis had a lower median NELA score compared those patients who did not (1.6% vs. 7.85%). Forty five (38%) patients had Clavien-Dindo grade IV-V complication. Colorectal Surgeon involvement in the operation (23/118), was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (17.4% colorectal surgeon vs. 23.2% emergency general surgeon alone) albeit in patients with a lower median NELA score (4.5% vs. 6.7%) and a similar rate of primary anastomosis was achieved (31.6% vs. 30.9%). Conclusions The high mortality rate highlights a specific group of acutely unwell patients unfit for transfer to the subspecialist unit. Good outcomes were seen where a colorectal surgeon was involved, however a similar rate of primary anastomosis was demonstrated.

TP6.2.4 Emergency colorectal resections: do colorectal surgeons achieve better outcomes than non-colorectal surgeons?

Aim Patients requiring emergency colorectal surgery in Tayside are managed by general surgeons who may or may not have subspecialist training in colorectal surgery. We investigated whether surgeon subspecialisation influences outcomes after emergency colorectal resections. Methods All patients undergoing emergency colorectal resections between 01/01/14 and 31/10/20 were included. Demographic, clinical, operative and outcome data were collected from hospital electronic records. Outcomes were compared for patients treated by colorectal versus non-colorectal surgeons. The primary outcome was 30-day post-operative mortality. Adjusted mortality was calculated using logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included rates of laparoscopic surgery, stomas, complications, readmissions and length of hospital stay. Categorical data were compared by chi-squared tests and non-parametric data by Wilcoxon tests. Results Of the 177 operations performed, 104 (58.8%) were performed by colorectal surgeons. Overall 30 day mortality was 5.1%, which was significantly lower for colorectal versus non-colorectal surgeons (1.0% vs 11.0%, p = 0.003), this remained significant after multivariate adjustment (Odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.86, p = 0.036). The proportion of laparoscopic cases was significantly higher for colorectal compared with non-colorectal surgeons (54.8% vs 4.1%, p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in stoma rates (76.0% vs 63.0%, p = 0.063), further procedures (5.8% vs 8.2%, p = 0.523), anastomotic leaks (1.9% vs 4.1%, p = 0.387), readmission within 30 days (12.5% vs 13.7%, p = 0.815) or median length of hospital stay (16 vs 18 days, p = 0.375). Conclusion Mortality rates at 30 days after emergency colorectal surgery are significantly lower for patients treated by subspecialist colorectal surgeons. This provides a strong argument for a subspecialist on-call rota.

TP6.2.2 Multi-disciplinary interventions to increase utilisation of NELA scores and critical care involvement following emergency colorectal surgery

Aims This audit aimed to assess pre-operative NELA risk score documentation and subsequent specialist peri-operative critical care involvement. Methods This complete audit cycle retrospectively reviewed notes (electronic patient records, anaesthetic charts and CEPOD booking forms) of all patients undergoing emergency laparotomy between March and May 2019. The NELA score was calculated retrospectively if not documented. Following the initial audit, the following multi-disciplinary interventions were instituted: alteration of the physical CEPOD booking form to include NELA score (Surgical); a sticker added to anaesthetic charts to prompt NELA calculation (Anaesthetic), formal recording of NELA score during theatre brief (Theatre staff); and by increasing awareness of NELA via departmental education (All). The audit cycle was completed by reassessment between October and November 2020. Results The initial cycle included 34 patients, with only 2 (6%) having a NELA documented. The repeat cycle included 35 patients, with 29 (83%) having a NELA documented. Regarding post-operative critical care admissions, both cycles found that 100% of patients with a NELA of ≥ 5%, were admitted to either surgical HDU or ICU (n = 17 in first cycle, n = 17 in second cycle). For those with a high-risk NELA of ≥ 10% (n = 11 in first cycle, n = 7 in second cycle), only 2 (18%) were admitted to ICU in the first cycle vs 7 (100%) in the second cycle. Conclusions This complete audit cycle demonstrates improved NELA score calculation following institution of several multidisciplinary interventions. The improved NELA score uptake was associated with increased critical care review and admission to ITU in high-risk cases.

Application of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols in Colorectal Cancer, Complicated by Malignant Bowel Obstruction: a Review of the Literature

Summary Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are standard in elective colorectal surgery. They lead to decreasing postoperative complications and shorten the hospital stay and the recovery period. Following these protocols is associated with better short-term results and better and disease-free survival in cases of respectable colorectal carcinomas. There is clear evidence of the beneficial effect of the protocols in reducing the rate of postoperative complications and shortening the hospital stay after elective colorectal surgery. There remains the question of whether these protocols are applicable effective in patients after emergency colorectal surgery. Over the last years, safe and effective ERAS protocols have been reported in patients with life-threatening conditions such as colorectal obstruction and intraabdominal infection.