INTRODUCTION: In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting. METHODS: The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists. CONCLUSION These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.
Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Singapore

INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation may benefit older patients undergoing major surgeries. Currently, its efficacy has not been conclusively proven. This is a retrospective review of a multimodal prehabilitation programme. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years and above undergoing major abdominal surgery between May 2015 and December 2019 in the National University Hospital were included in our institutional programme that incorporated aspects of multimodal prehabilitation and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery concepts as 1 holistic perioperative pathway to deal with issues specific to older patients. Physical therapy, nutritional advice and psychosocial support were provided as part of prehabilitation. RESULTS: There were 335 patients in the prehabilitation cohort and 256 patients whose records were reviewed as control. No difference in postoperative length of stay ( CONCLUSION The current study found no differences in traditional surgical outcome measures with and without prehabilitation. An increase in patient mobility in the immediate postoperative period was noted with prehabilitation, as well as an association between prehabilitation and increased adherence to postoperative adjuvant therapy. Larger prospective studies will be needed to validate the findings of this retrospective review.
Humans ; Postoperative Complications/prevention & control* ; Preoperative Care ; Preoperative Exercise ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies

INTRODUCTIONNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer has been shown to improve local control and reduce toxicity, as compared to adjuvant CRT. We reported the outcomes of our patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated at National University Hospital, Singapore.

METHODSFrom April 2002 to December 2014, 117 patients with T3/4, N0/+, M0 rectal cancer received neoadjuvant CRT followed by TME surgery. The treatment regimen comprised a total radiotherapy dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 daily fractions delivered concurrently with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine chemotherapy over 5.5 weeks. All patients were planned for TME surgery. Local control, disease-free survival, overall survival and treatment toxicities were analysed.

RESULTSMedian follow-up was 34 (range 2-122) months. 11.5% (13/113) of patients achieved a pathological complete response (pCR) and 72.6% (85/117) had either tumour or nodal downstaging following neoadjuvant CRT. 5.2% (5/96) of patients had Grade 3 acute toxicities (dermatitis and diarrhoea) and 3.1% (3/96) had Grade 3 late toxicities (fistula and stricture). There was no Grade 4 toxicity noted. The five-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.5%, 65.7% and 80.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that nodal positivity was a predictor of poor disease-free survival and poor overall survival. Tumour downstaging and pCR did not improve outcomes.

CONCLUSIONOur outcomes were comparable to internationally published data, and this treatment regimen remains the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in our local population.

Aged ; Asian People ; Humans ; Image-Guided Biopsy/methods* ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Multimodal Imaging/methods* ; Prostate/pathology* ; Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology* ; Rectum/diagnostic imaging* ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods* ; Ultrasonography