ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4536-9595
Current Organisations
St Mark's Hospital
,
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
,
University of Aberdeen
,
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 28-02-2019
DOI: 10.1002/BJS5.50138
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2021
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 30-03-2023
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0283000
Abstract: The introduction of robot-assisted surgery is costly and requires whole system transformation, which makes the assessment of benefits (or drawbacks) complex. To date, there has been little agreement on which outcomes should be used in this regard. The aim of the RoboCOS study was to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of robot-assisted surgery that would account for its impact on the whole system. Identification of a long-list of potentially relevant outcomes through systematic review of trials and health technology assessments interviews with in iduals from a range of stakeholder groups (surgeons, service managers, policy makers and evaluators) and a focus group with patients and public prioritisation of outcomes via a 2-round online international Delphi survey consensus meeting. 721 outcomes were extracted from the systematic reviews, interviews and focus group which were conceptualised into 83 different outcome domains across four distinct levels (patient, surgeon, organisation and population) for inclusion in the international Delphi prioritisation survey (128 completed both rounds). The consensus meeting led to the agreement of a 10-item core outcome set including outcomes at: patient level (treatment effectiveness overall quality of life disease-specific quality of life complications (including mortality) surgeon level (precision/accuracy visualisation) organisation (equipment failure standardisation of operative quality cost-effectiveness) and population (equity of access). The RoboCOS core outcome set, which includes the outcomes of importance to all stakeholders, is recommended for use in all future evaluations of robot-assisted surgery to ensure relevant and comparable reporting of outcomes.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 25-09-2020
DOI: 10.1002/BJS.12050
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 2019
DOI: 10.1002/BJS.11051
Abstract: The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89·6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60·6 per cent odds ratio (OR) 0·17, 95 per cent c.i. 0·14 to 0·21, P & 0·001) or low (363 of 860, 42·2 per cent OR 0·08, 0·07 to 0·10, P & 0·001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference −9·4 (95 per cent c.i. −11·9 to −6·9) per cent P & 0·001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+12·1 (+7·0 to +17·3) per cent P & 0·001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0·60, 0·50 to 0·73 P & 0·001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-12-2020
DOI: 10.1111/CODI.15431
Abstract: This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS‐CoV‐2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS‐CoV‐2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID‐19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30‐day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS‐CoV‐2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty‐day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS‐CoV‐2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS‐CoV‐2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS‐CoV‐2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS‐CoV‐2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS‐CoV‐2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID‐19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks.
Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.01933
Abstract: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9% adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6% aOR, 0.53 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 24-03-2021
DOI: 10.1093/BJS/ZNAB101
Abstract: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18–49, 50–69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351 best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733 best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840 best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-2021
DOI: 10.1093/BJS/ZNAB050
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 03-2017
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-03-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15458
Abstract: Peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30‐day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30‐day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30‐day mortality in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4–1.5). In patients with a pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks and 5–6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3–4.8), 3.9 (2.6–5.1) and 3.6 (2.0–5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9–2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2–8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4–3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6–2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 05-04-2018
DOI: 10.1007/S00464-018-6064-9
Abstract: Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency worldwide. Differences between high- and low-income settings in the availability of laparoscopic appendectomy, alternative management choices, and outcomes are poorly described. The aim was to identify variation in surgical management and outcomes of appendicitis within low-, middle-, and high-Human Development Index (HDI) countries worldwide. This is a multicenter, international prospective cohort study. Consecutive s ling of patients undergoing emergency appendectomy over 6 months was conducted. Follow-up lasted 30 days. 4546 patients from 52 countries underwent appendectomy (2499 high-, 1540 middle-, and 507 low-HDI groups). Surgical site infection (SSI) rates were higher in low-HDI (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.33–4.99, p = 0.005) but not middle-HDI countries (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.76–2.52, p = 0.291), compared with high-HDI countries after adjustment. A laparoscopic approach was common in high-HDI countries (1693/2499, 67.7%), but infrequent in low-HDI (41/507, 8.1%) and middle-HDI (132/1540, 8.6%) groups. After accounting for case-mix, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42–0.71, p 0.001) and SSIs (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14–0.33, p 0.001). In propensity-score matched groups within low-/middle-HDI countries, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.23 95% CI 0.11–0.44) and SSI (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.09–0.45). A laparoscopic approach is associated with better outcomes and availability appears to differ by country HDI. Despite the profound clinical, operational, and financial barriers to its widespread introduction, laparoscopy could significantly improve outcomes for patients in low-resource environments. Trial registration: NCT02179112.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 13-03-2021
DOI: 10.1093/BJS/ZNAB064
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15563
Abstract: SARS‐CoV‐2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri‐operative or prior SARS‐CoV‐2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub‐study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was defined as peri‐operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery) recent (1–6 weeks before surgery) previous (≥7 weeks before surgery) or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre‐operative anti‐coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS‐CoV‐2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri‐operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1–2.0)) and recent SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2–3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9–3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30‐day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3–6.7)). In patients with SARS‐CoV‐2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri‐operative or recent SARS‐CoV‐2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 16-07-2020
DOI: 10.1002/BJS.11812
Abstract: Anastomotic leak is a common complication after colorectal surgery, associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and poorer long-term survival after oncological resections. Early diagnosis improves short-term outcomes, and may translate into reduced cancer recurrence. Multiple studies have attempted to identify biomarkers to enable earlier diagnosis of anastomotic leak. One study demonstrated that the trajectory of C-reactive protein (CRP) levels was highly predictive of anastomotic leak requiring intervention, with an area under the curve of 0·961. The aim of the present study was to validate this finding externally. This was a prospective international multicentre observational study of adults undergoing elective colorectal resection with an anastomosis. CRP levels were measured before operation and for 5 days afterwards, or until day of discharge if earlier than this. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak requiring operative or radiological intervention. Between March 2017 and July 2018, 933 patients were recruited from 20 hospitals across Australia, New Zealand, England and Scotland. Some 833 patients had complete CRP data and were included in the primary analysis, of whom 41 (4·9 per cent) developed an anastomotic leak. A change in CRP level exceeding 50 mg/l between any two postoperative days had a sensitivity of 0·85 for detecting a leak, and a high negative predictive value of 0·99 for ruling it out. A change in CRP concentration of more than 50 mg/l between either days 3 and 4 or days 4 and 5 after surgery had a high specificity of 0·96–0·97, with positive likelihood ratios of 4·99–6·44 for a leak requiring intervention. This study confirmed the value of CRP trajectory in accurately ruling out an anastomotic leak after colorectal resection.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Shafaque Shaikh.