BN SO33 - The complex benign multi-disciplinary team meeting - a paradigm shift in decision making for benign oesophagogastric surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Decision making in benign OG pathology can be particularly challenging given the overlap with functional disorders, such as reflux hypersensitivity. A specialist benign oesophagogastric (OG) multidisciplinary team (MDT) may improve our ability to triage potential surgical candidates from those with functional conditions. Unlike in OG cancer, there is a paucity of evidence to support an MDT based approach in benign OG surgery. This study aims to report our experience of introducing a specialist benign OG MDT in an OG tertiary centre in the UK, examining the effect on decision making and an assessment of its acceptability and utility to clinicians. Method A review of consecutive cases discussed in the specialist benign OG MDT since inception in 2022 was undertaken. We reviewed indications, treatment plans and outcomes, any alteration in treatment pathway and final decisions. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a change in management as a result of MDT discussion. Where applicable, results were reported using descriptive statistics. A seven-item electronic questionnaire was also circulated to MDT members (OG surgeons, specialist gastroenterologists, GI radiographers, GI physiologists, and doctors in training), to assess the acceptability and perceived utility of the meetings. Results 74 patient cases were discussed (median age 57.5 (25-79) years). 71/74 (96.0%) of referrals were made by OG surgeons, most commonly to discuss anti-reflux procedures (53/74 (71.6%)). 34/74 (45.9%) patients had undergone previous surgery, most commonly laparoscopic fundoplication. MDT discussion led to a change in management in 43/74 (58.1%) case with recommendations of further investigation (23.0%), further OG clinic review (18.9%) and 21.6% listed for surgery. 12/74 (16.2%) were referred to other specialist services, including clinical psychology. Survey confirmed that all MDT members found their understanding of oesophageal physiology and subsequent decision-making ability in clinic was greatly enhanced. Conclusion Our results show that the complex benign MDT is an effective tool, demonstrating changes to management in over half of cases discussed, including recommending surgery less frequently following specialist review of physiology investigations. Such tests effectively identify functional disorders, such as rumination, highlighting a need for clear onward referral pathways involving specialist psychologists. The meetings have also proven to be valuable learning tools for all attendees of all grades. We strongly believe that adopting an MDT approach to benign OG conditions will enhance collaborative decision making, improve patient outcomes and therefore should be nationally mandated and recommended through AUGIS guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".