Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn’s and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, including patients, their families and friends.

Aim: There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology.Methods: Surgeons who are members of theACPGBIwith a recognised interest inIBDwere invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines.Results: All aspects of surgical care forIBDhave been included along with 157 recommendations for management.Conclusion: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management ofIBDand will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

Background: Introduction: The prognosis of dysplasia in patients with IBD is largely determined from observational studies from the pre‐videoendoscopic era (pre‐1990s) that does not reflect recent advances in endoscopic imaging and resection.Aims: To better understand the risk of synchronous colorectal cancer and metachronous advanced neoplasia (ie high‐grade dysplasia or cancer) associated with dysplasia diagnosed in the videoendoscopic era, and to stratify risk according to a lesion's morphology, endoscopic resection status or whether it was incidentally detected on biopsy of macroscopically normal colonic mucosa (ie invisible).Methods: A systematic search of original articles published between 1990 and February 2020 was performed. Eligible studies reported on incidence of advanced neoplasia at follow‐up colectomy or colonoscopy for IBD‐dysplasia patients. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.Results: Thirty‐three studies were eligible for qualitative analysis (five for the meta‐analysis). Pooled estimated proportions of incidental synchronous cancers found at colectomy performed for a pre‐operative diagnosis of visible high‐grade dysplasia, invisible high‐grade dysplasia, visible low‐grade dysplasia and invisible low‐grade dysplasia were 13.7% (95% CI 0.0‐54.1), 11.4% (95% CI 4.6‐20.3), 2.7% (95% CI 0.0‐7.1) and 2.4% (95% CI 0.0‐8.5) respectively. The lowest incidences of metachronous advanced neoplasia, for dysplasia not managed with immediate colectomy but followed up with surveillance, tended to be reported by the studies where high definition imaging and/or chromoendoscopy was used and endoscopic resection of visible dysplasia was histologically confirmed.Conclusions: The prognosis of IBD‐dysplasia diagnosed in the videoendoscopic era appears to have been improved but the quality of evidence remains low. Larger, prospective studies are needed to guide management.PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019105736.

(i) To establish at a national level clinical outcomes from patients presenting with acute para-esophageal hernia (PEH); and (ii) to determine if a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for the management of acute PEH. Currently, no clear guidelines exist regarding the management of acute PEH, and practice patterns are based upon relatively small case series. Patients admitted as an emergency for the treatment of acute PEH between 1997 and 2012 were included from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. The influence of hospital volume upon clinical outcomes was analyzed in unmatched and matched comparisons to control for patient age, medical comorbidities, and incidence of PEH hernia gangrene. Over the 16-year study period, 12,441 patients were admitted as an emergency with a PEH causing obstruction or gangrene. Of these, 90.8% patients were admitted with PEH with obstruction in the absence of gangrene and 9.2% with PEH with gangrene. The incidences of 30 and 90-day mortality were 7% and 11.5%, respectively, which did not decrease during the study period. Unmatched and matched comparisons showed, in high-volume centers, there were significant reductions in utilization of emergency surgery (8.8% vs 14.9%; P < 0.0001), 30-day (5.3% vs 7.8%; P < 0.0001), and 90-day mortality (9.3% vs 12.7%; P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis also confirmed high hospital volume was independently associated with reduced 30 and 90-day mortality from acute PEH. Acute PEH represents a highly morbid condition, and treatment in high-volume centers provides the appropriate multidisciplinary infrastructure to manage these complex patients reducing associated mortality.

To review primary research evidence investigating performance of CT colonography for colorectal cancer surveillance. The financial impact of using CT colonography for surveillance was also estimated. We identified primary studies of CT colonography for surveillance of colorectal cancer patients. A summary ROC curve was constructed. Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using the I2 value. Financial impact was estimated for a theoretical cohort of patients, based on Cancer Research UK statistics. Seven studies provided data on 880 patients. Five of seven studies (765 patients) were included for qualitative analysis. Sensitivity of CT colonography for detection of anastomotic recurrence was 95 % (95 % CI 62 - 100), specificity 100 % (95 % CI 75 - 100) and sensitivity for metachronous cancers was 100 %. No statistical heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0 %). We estimated that CT colonography as a 'single test' alternative to colonoscopy and standard CT for surveillance would potentially save €20,785,232 (£14,803,404) for an annual cohort of UK patients. CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy for detection of anastomotic recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer, and appears financially beneficial. These findings should be considered alongside limitations of small patient numbers and high clinical heterogeneity between studies. • CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy/standard CT for colorectal cancer surveillance. • CT colonography offers single-test luminal, serosal and extra-colonic assessment. • CT colonography is a potentially cost-saving alternative to standard surveillance protocols.