Authors' objectives: Neonates undergoing emergency abdominal surgery frequently require a stoma; closing this stoma with a second operation is an essential part of recovery. Timing of closure varies. Optimal timing is unclear and would be best resolved through a randomised controlled trial; such a trial is likely to be challenging. Neonates undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for problems such as necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) or a congenital bowel obstruction frequently require a stoma. While stomas can be life-saving, they pose a number of challenges including fluid and electrolyte imbalance, local wound and skin problems, malnutrition and growth failure. Reversing (closing) these stomas with a second operation is therefore an essential part of an infant’s recovery. The timing of stoma closure is known to vary between hospitals and, indeed, clinicians and the best time remains unclear, with conflicting evidence from published studies of low methodological quality. The specific objectives of the ToSCiN study were: to establish current UK practice for stoma closure in neonates to determine whether there is equipoise among clinicians (neonatal surgeons and neonatologists) and allied health professionals (specialist nurses and dietitians) over when it is best to close stomas in neonates to define ‘early’ and ‘late’ stoma closure for a potential trial to define a population of neonates for inclusion in a trial (in whom there is significant uncertainty over timing) and determine how many infants are eligible for inclusion to establish the most appropriate design and outcome measures for a trial to determine the willingness of parents, neonatal surgeons and neonatologists to include neonates in a trial that would randomise to ‘early’ or ‘late’ stoma closure and identify potential barriers to recruitment to assess the suitability of using routinely collected data for gathering clinical information for a trial.

Authors' results and conclusions: One hundred and sixty-six professionals from all 27 neonatal surgical centres completed the survey: 6 weeks was the most common target time for stoma closure across clinical scenarios, although there was wide variation. Timing of closure was influenced by nutrition, growth and stoma complications. The prospective cohort study enrolled 56 infants from 8 centres. Infants were mostly preterm with necrotising enterocolitis or intestinal perforation. Clinicians identified extreme preterm gestation and clinical conditions as reasons for not randomising babies into a hypothetical trial comparing early and late stoma closure. Parents and healthcare professionals identified that comparator arms needed more clinical flexibility in relation to timing of stoma closure. Analysis of existing databases revealed wide variation in current timing of stoma closure in neonates and identified approximately 300 eligible infants for a trial per annum in the United Kingdom. A trial of ‘early’ compared to ‘late’ stoma closure in neonates is feasible and is important to families and health professionals. The population of eligible babies in the United Kingdom is sufficient for such a trial. Challenges centre around lack of equipoise in certain scenarios, specifically: extremely preterm infants; infants waiting too long for stoma closure in the ‘late’ comparator; and logistical issues in closing a stoma at a trial-allocated time. These challenges are addressable by incorporating flexibility based on gestation at birth, communicating that both trial arms are standard practice and valid treatment options, and providing resources, for example, for operating lists. Workstream 1 Results One hundred and sixty-six professionals completed the survey with at least one respondent from each of the 27 UK centres. Six weeks was the most commonly stated target time for closure across all scenarios, although there was a high degree of variability, with intervals of 12 weeks or more frequently advocated. While 70–76% of respondents preferred closure prior to discharge in preterm infants and a term infant with jejunostomy, only 46% preferred this in term infants with ileostomy. A sizeable proportion (41%) use weight, rather than time, to determine when to close a stoma. Thematic analysis of free text identified nine key themes influencing decision-making, mostly related to nutrition, growth and stoma complications. With regard to potential trial design, 86% of respondents indicated they would include preterm infants with NEC/SIP and 72% term infants with other conditions. Closure at 6 weeks was the most commonly cited timing of early intervention; the preferred later time point was 12 weeks. Growth was most commonly selected as the favoured primary outcome for a trial, followed by time to full feeds, length of stay and duration of PN. We found that a randomised trial of early compared to late stoma closure in neonates is feasible and is important to families and health professionals. We identified the following components as being critical to a successful future trial: comparison of closure at 6 weeks versus expectant management comparison that accounts for completed gestational age, rather than solely duration of stoma. We identified the potential population and outcomes for such a trial and established that a sufficient population exists in the UK. We also identified that a trial comparing ‘early’ and ‘late’ closure at rigidly defined time points (e.g. closure at 6 compared to 12 weeks) would not be feasible. The principal challenge for trial conduct was found to be the ‘baby-led’ narrative that came through strongly from study participants. Parents and professionals appeared to lack equipoise in certain scenarios. However, this lack of personal equipoise is not exclusive to ToSCiN, and similar themes have been overcome in trials in the past (including complex surgical trials) by optimising communication. Our findings provide valuable insight into how best to do this in a future trial. Other challenges identified include: (1) concerns about inclusion of extremely preterm infants, (2) concerns about infants waiting too long for stoma closure if randomised to the ‘late’ comparator arm and (3) logistical arrangements for closing a stoma at the time dictated by trial allocation. These challenges are eminently addressable, by designing the trial to: (1) incorporate a degree of flexibility (e.g. using ‘expectant management’ as the comparator), (2) make allowances for certain groups (e.g. having a higher corrected gestational age limit for extremely preterm infants) and (3) ensure parents and professionals are aware both trial arms are standard practice and valid treatment options.

Authors' methods: Mixed methods comprising three parallel workstreams incorporating: a clinician survey, prospective observational cohort study, parent interviews, focus groups, database analyses and consensus meeting. Specialist neonatal surgical centres across the United Kingdom. Neonatologists, neonatal surgeons, neonatal dietitians and neonatal nurses who care for neonates with stomas. Neonates with recent stoma, their parents and the clinicians looking after them. Three existing, overlapping clinical databases. The ToSCiN study used a mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative methodology) and comprised three parallel workstreams. Workstream 1: Survey of clinician and allied health professional perspectives on neonatal stoma closure An online survey was sent to clinicians and allied health professionals involved in the care of newborn infants with stomas at neonatal surgical units across the UK. The survey questions and a series of clinical scenarios to explore current practice/preferences, perspectives on ‘early’ versus ‘late’ stoma closure, which groups of infants should be included in a trial comparing these, preferred trial design including outcomes and barriers to achieving the optimal timing of closure.

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/NIHR128617

Year Published: 2024

URL for published report: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/JFBC1893

URL for additional information: English

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Full HTA

Country: England, United Kingdom

DOI: 10.3310/JFBC1893

Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme

Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK

Contact Name: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk

Contact Email: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk