Introduction The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of... Show moreIntroduction The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. ‘PelvEx—Beating the empty pelvis syndrome’ aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome. Methods and analysis A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting. Ethics and dissemination The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome.Trial registration number NCT05683795. Show less
Objective: To assess the adoption of recommendation from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and investigate factors favoring or preventing adoption.Background: RCT are considered to be the... Show moreObjective: To assess the adoption of recommendation from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and investigate factors favoring or preventing adoption.Background: RCT are considered to be the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine by representing the highest level of evidence. As such, we expect RCT's recommendations to be followed rigorously in daily surgical practice.Methods: We performed a structured search for RCTs published in the medical and surgical literature from 2009 to 2013, allowing a minimum of 5-year follow-up to convincingly test implementation. We focused on comparative technical or procedural RCTs trials addressing the domains of general, colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal and vascular surgery. In a second step we composed a survey of 29 questions among ESA members as well as collaborators from their institutions to investigate the adoption of surgical RCTs recommendation.Results: The survey based on 36 RCTs (median 5-yr citation index 85 (24-474), from 21 different countries, published in 15 high-ranked journals with a median impact factor of 3.3 (1.23- 7.9) at the time of publication. Overall, less than half of the respondents (47%) appeared to adhere to the recommendations of a specific RCT within their field of expertise, even when included in formal guidelines. Adoption of a new surgical practice was favored by watching videos (46%) as well as assisting live operations (18%), while skepticism regarding the methodology of a surgical RCT (40%) appears to be the major reason to resist adoption.Conclusion: In conclusion, surgical RCTs appear to have moderate impact on daily surgical practice. While RCTs are still accepted to provide the highest level of evidence, alternative methods of evaluating surgical innovations should also be explored. Show less
