BACKGROUND: This study sought to identify and compare the current practice of surgeons in Australia, the UK and the US when presented with a left-sided colonic emergency. METHODS: Questionnaires were posted to 500 US, 500 UK and 500 Australian surgeons. Demographic data were collected regarding the surgeon's age and surgical interest, as well as their preferred method of managing left-sided colonic emergencies (namely obstruction and perforation in stable and unstable patients). The results were analysed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 224 UK surgeons (45%), 180 US surgeons (36%) and 259 Australian surgeons (52%). All the US surgeons had an interest in gastrointestinal surgery, while 31% of the UK surgeons and 22% of Australian surgeons had an interest in colorectal surgery. In a haemodynamically stable patient with a good anaesthetic risk presenting with a complete sigmoid obstruction, significantly more UK (84%) and Australian surgeons (70%) would perform a resection and anastomosis than US surgeons (54%, p<0.0001). Of those with a colorectal interest, 97% of UK surgeons and 80% of Australian surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis. In a haemodynamically stable patient with a good anaesthetic risk with a perforation of the sigmoid colon and purulent peritonitis, 46% of UK surgeons, 32% of Australian surgeons and 33% of US surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis, and among colorectal surgeons, 68% of UK surgeons and 50% of Australian surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: The management of left-sided colonic emergencies varies depending on geographic location and degree of colorectal subspecialization. While the literature suggests that single-stage procedures are accepted and safe, the reasons for this variation are explored.
BACKGROUND: This study sought to identify and compare the current practice of surgeons in Australia, the UK and the US when presented with a left-sided colonic emergency. METHODS: Questionnaires were posted to 500 US, 500 UK and 500 Australian surgeons. Demographic data were collected regarding the surgeon's age and surgical interest, as well as their preferred method of managing left-sided colonic emergencies (namely obstruction and perforation in stable and unstable patients). The results were analysed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 224 UK surgeons (45%), 180 US surgeons (36%) and 259 Australian surgeons (52%). All the US surgeons had an interest in gastrointestinal surgery, while 31% of the UK surgeons and 22% of Australian surgeons had an interest in colorectal surgery. In a haemodynamically stable patient with a good anaesthetic risk presenting with a complete sigmoid obstruction, significantly more UK (84%) and Australian surgeons (70%) would perform a resection and anastomosis than US surgeons (54%, p<0.0001). Of those with a colorectal interest, 97% of UK surgeons and 80% of Australian surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis. In a haemodynamically stable patient with a good anaesthetic risk with a perforation of the sigmoid colon and purulent peritonitis, 46% of UK surgeons, 32% of Australian surgeons and 33% of US surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis, and among colorectal surgeons, 68% of UK surgeons and 50% of Australian surgeons would opt for resection and anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: The management of left-sided colonic emergencies varies depending on geographic location and degree of colorectal subspecialization. While the literature suggests that single-stage procedures are accepted and safe, the reasons for this variation are explored.