Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has led to drastic measures being implemented for the management of surgical patients across all health services worldwide, including the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. It is suspected that the virus has had a detrimental effect on perioperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these outcomes in emergency general surgical patients. Methods Emergency general surgical admissions were included in this retrospective cohort study in one of the COVID-19 hotspots in the South East of England. The primary outcome was the 30-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included the length of stay in hospital, complication rate and severity grade and admission rates to the ITU. Results Of 123 patients, COVID-19 was detected in 12.2%. Testing was not carried out in 26%. When comparing COVID-positive to COVID-negative patients, the mean age was 71.8 + 8.8 vs. 50.7 + 5.7, respectively, and female patients accounted for 40.0 vs. 52.6%. The 30-day mortality rate was 26.7 vs. 3.9 (OR 6.49, p = 0.02), respectively. The length of stay in hospital was 20.5 + 22.2 vs. 7.7 + 9.8 ( p < 0.01), the rate of complications was 80.0 vs. 23.7 (OR 12.9, p < 0.01), and the rate of admission to the ITU was 33.3 vs. 7.9% (OR 5.83, p = 0.01). Conclusion This study demonstrates the detrimental effect of COVID-19 on emergency general surgery, with significantly worsened surgical outcomes.

Introduction The National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme guidelines advocate the use of endoscopic tattooing for suspected malignant lesions to assist identification and to facilitate laparoscopic resections. However, endoscopic tattooing practices are variable in endoscopic units, resulting in re-endoscopy and delay in patient management. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to tattoo protocol for significant colonic lesions at an endoscopy unit in a large district general hospital. Materials and methods Prospectively collected data were analysed for 252 patients with significant colonic lesions between January 2017 and December 2018. Data were collected through reviewing patient’s notes, histopathology findings and endoscopy reports. Data on lesions, complications, number and site of tattoo placed, and any repeat endoscopy for a tattoo were collected. Results Of the 252 patients, 88% (n = 222) had malignant and 12% (n = 30) had benign lesions. Only 58.7% (n = 148) of those patients who had colonoscopy had tattoo placement reported. Of these 148 cases, the report stated the distance of tattoo in relation to the lesion in only 46% (n = 68) of patients. Unfortunately, 14.3% (n = 36) of patients required re-endoscopy to tattoo the lesions prior to surgery. Conclusions Our study highlights the lack of uniformity of tattoo practice among endoscopists. Despite the National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme guidelines, a significant proportion of colorectal lesions are still not tattooed during their first endoscopy. Some patients had to have repeat endoscopy just for the purpose of tattooing. Active involvement and participation of all endoscopists in the colorectal and the complex polyp multidisciplinary teams may help to improve the tattoo service.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are gradually becoming the gold standard in the perioperative management of rectal patients. It is a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach that has the great merit to involve and empower the patient and bring him or her back to the centre of the strategy of care. If applied correctly, ERAS can improve the postoperative recovery, reduce the rate of complications and reduce the postoperative length of stay, in patients who had extensive pelvic dissection. The factors within ERAS and their application do not represent rigid schematizations but fluid concepts that may undergo substantial changes as soon as new evidence becomes available. The ERAS principles must be adapted to the specific environment and each team is expected to set up their own programme and quality control criteria. In this comprehensive review, the latest evidence and trend on enhanced recovery after rectal surgery have been critically appraised and presented.

Background: Despite NICE/AUGIS recommendations, the practice of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) has been particularly poor in the UK offered only by 11%–20% surgeons as compared to 33%–67% internationally, possibly due to financial constraints, logistical difficulties and shortage of expertise, thus, reflecting the varied provision of emergency general surgical care. To assess whether emergency general surgeons (EGS) could provide a 'Hot Gall Bladder Service' (HGS) with an acceptable outcome. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective HGS observational study that was protocol driven with strict inclusion/exclusion criteria and secure online data collection in a district general hospital between July 2018 and June 2019. A weekly dedicated theatre slot was allocated for this list. Results: Of the 143 referred for HGS, 86 (60%) underwent ELC which included 60 (70%) women. Age, ASA and body mass index was 54* (18–85) years, II* (I-III) and 27* (20–54), respectively. 86 included 46 (53%), 19 (22%), 19 (22%) and 2 (3%) patients presenting with acute calculus cholecystitis, gallstone pancreatitis, biliary colic, and acalculus cholecystitis, respectively. 85 (99%) underwent LC with a single conversion. Grade of surgical difficulty, duration of surgery and post-operative stay was 2* (1–4) 68* (30–240) min and 0* (0–13) day, respectively. Eight (9%) required senior surgical input with no intra-operative complications and 2 (2%) 30-day readmissions. One was post-operative subhepatic collection that recovered uneventfully and the second was pancreatitis, imaging was clear requiring no further intervention. Conclusion: In the current climate of NHS financial crunch, COVID pandemic and significant pressure on inpatient beds: Safe and cost-effective HGS can be provided by the EGS with input from upper GI/HPB surgeons (when required) with acceptable morbidity and a satisfactory outcome.