BackgroundWe recently conducted a systematic review of the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in plastic surgery. In accordance with convention, we are here separately reporting a systematic review of the reporting quality of the same RCTs.MethodsMEDLINE® and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched by an information specialist from 1 January 2009 to 30 June 2011 for the MESH heading ‘Surgery, Plastic’. Limitations were entered for English language, human studies and randomised controlled trials. Manual searching for RCTs involving surgical techniques was performed within the results. Scoring of the eligible papers was performed against the 23-item CONSORT Statement checklist. Independent secondary scoring was then performed and discrepancies resolved through consensus.ResultsFifty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria. The median CONSORT score was 11.5 out of 23 items (range 5.3–21.0). Items where compliance was poorest included intervention/comparator details (7 %), randomisation implementation (11 %) and blinding (26 %). Journal 2010 impact factor or number of authors did not significantly correlate with CONSORT score (Spearman rho = 0.25 and 0.12, respectively). Only 61 % declared conflicts of interest, 75 % permission from an ethics review committee, 47 % declared sources of funding and 16 % stated a trial registry number. There was no correlation between the volume of RCTs performed in a particular country and reporting quality.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of RCTs in plastic surgery needs improvement. Better education, awareness amongst all stakeholders and hard-wiring compliance through electronic journal submission systems could be the way forward. We call for the international plastic surgical community to work together on these long-standing problems.

No abstract

Background Prehabilitation is thought to reduce post-operative respiratory complications by optimising fitness before surgery. This prospective, single-centre study aimed to establish the effect of pre-operative exercise on cardiorespiratory fitness in oesophageal cancer patients and characterise the effect of adherence and weekly physical activity on response to prehabilitation. Methods Patients received a personalised, home-based pre-operative exercise programme and self-reported their adherence each week. Cardiorespiratory fitness (pVO 2 max and O 2 pulse) was assessed at diagnosis, following completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and immediately before surgery. Study outcomes included changes in fitness and post-operative pneumonia. Results Sixty-seven patients with oesophageal cancer underwent prehabilitation followed by surgery between January 2016 and December 2018. Fitness was preserved during NAC and then increased prior to surgery (pV0 2 max Δ = +2.6 ml min −1 , 95% CI 1.2-4.0 p = 0.001; O 2 pulse Δ = +1.4 ml beat −1 95% CI 0.5-2.3 p = 0.001). Patients with higher baseline fitness completed more physical activity. Regression analyses found adherence was associated with improvement in fitness immediately before surgery (p = 0.048), and the amount of physical activity completed was associated with the risk of post-operative pneumonia (p = 0.035). Conclusion Pre-operative exercise can maintain cardiorespiratory fitness during NAC and facilitate an increase in fitness before surgery. Greater exercise volumes were associated with a lower risk of post-operative pneumonia, highlighting the importance progressing exercise programmes throughout prehabilitation. Patients with high baseline fitness completed more physical activity and may require less supervision to reach their exercise goals. Further research is needed to explore stratified approaches to prehabilitation.

Background Patients undergoing oesophageal cancer surgery are often frail with a high risk of post-operative complications. Prehabilitation has been shown to reduce post-operative complications in specific patient populations but evidence in oesophageal cancer patients is inconclusive. Methods Between January 2016 and April 2019, all patients with resectable oesophageal cancer who underwent curative treatment at a specialist tertiary centre participated in a personalised, home-based, multimodal prehabilitation programme. Post-operative complications and hospital stay in this group were compared to a control sample. Propensity score matching was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics. Results Seventy-two patients who completed prehabilitation and 39 control patients were studied; following propensity score matching, there were 38 subjects in each group. In comparison to matched controls, patients in the prehabilitation group had a lower incidence of post-operative pneumonia (prehabilitation = 26%; control = 66%; p = 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (prehabilitation = median 10 days, IQR 8–17 days; control = median 13 days, IQR 11–20 days; p = 0.018). On multivariate regression analysis, participation in prehabilitation was associated with a 77% lower incidence of post-operative pneumonia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55 p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of overall complications or severe complications. Conclusion Prehabilitation was associated with a lower incidence of post-operative pneumonia and shorter hospital length of stay following oesophagectomy. This model of home based, personalised, and supervised prehabilitation is effective and relevant to centralised cancer services.

Esophagectomy remains the mainstay treatment of esophageal cancer (EC). Combined with neoadjuvant therapies, the management of EC has deleterious effects on body composition, functional capacity and psychological well-being. Preoperative patient optimisation known as prehabilitation is a novel intervention aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality associated with the trajectory of EC care. There is emerging evidence to suggest that prehabilitation is safe, feasible and efficacious. In addition, there is strong data to infer that prehabilitation has a positive effect on functional capacity through exercise. Nutritional and psychological interventions are less well evaluated. Furthermore, no convincing relationship between prehabilitation and oncological outcomes has been demonstrated. Early studies evaluating prehabilitation are promising however further large scale research is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness.

The most acclaimed surgeon of his time, Astley Cooper, a man from Norfolk and a student of the eminent John Hunter, was an outstandingly successful surgeon. With his accomplishments in surgery and experiments in dissection he soon became a prominent figure and received recognition worldwide. At the young age of 21 he was appointed Demonstrator in Anatomy at St Thomas's Hospital in London and two years later was made Joint Lecturer in Anatomy and Surgery. With his passion for anatomy, his love for surgery and his expanding knowledge he became Surgeon to Guy's Hospital in 1800 and in the same year was elected a Fellow to the Royal Society. His attainments led him to become surgeon to three successive British monarchs as well as receiving a bestowal of Baronetcy. Through his edifying lectures, fastidious experiments and publications on anatomy and pathology he has inspired and enlightened many budding anatomists and surgeons and the principles of his teachings still prevail in practice today.

No abstract

Summary Prehabilitation aims to optimize a patient’s functional capacity in preparation for surgery. Esophageal cancer patients have a high incidence of sarcopenia and commonly undergo neoadjuvant therapy, which is associated with loss of muscle mass. This study examines the effects of prehabilitation on body composition during neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer patients. In this cohort study, changes in body composition were compared between esophageal cancer patients who participated in prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapy and controls who did not receive prehabilitation. Assessment of body composition was performed from CT images acquired at the time of diagnosis and after neoadjuvant therapy. Fifty-one prehabilitation patients and 28 control patients were identified. There was a significantly greater fall in skeletal muscle index (SMI) in the control group compared with the prehabilitation patients (Δ SMI mean difference = −2.2 cm2/m2, 95% CI –4.3 to −0.1, p=0.038). Within the prehabilitation cohort, there was a smaller decline in SMI in patients with ≥75% adherence to exercise in comparison to those with lower adherence (Δ SMI mean difference = −3.2, 95% CI –6.0 to −0.5, P = 0.023). A greater decrease in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was seen with increasing volumes of exercise completed during prehabilitation (P = 0.046). Loss of VAT during neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a lower risk of post-operative complications (P = 0.017). By limiting the fall in SMI and promoting VAT loss, prehabilitation may have multiple beneficial effects in patients with esophageal cancer. Multi-center, randomized studies are needed to further explore these findings.