METHODS: We reviewed children aged
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of boys who presented with acute scrotal pain from 2014 to 2015. US reports, operative findings, final diagnosis and key time points of the patients' journey (time to emergency department consultation, time to admission, time to US and time to operating theatre [OT]) were collected. US performance results were compared with those observed in a historical cohort from 1998 to 2004. Wait times were compared between operated and non-operated patients.
RESULTS: Data from 519 boys with a mean age of 9.15 years was collected. Of these, 438 (84.4%) boys had undergone initial scrotal US; of these scrotal US cases, 28 were surgically explored, with 23 confirmed to have torsion. Another five cases were explored without prior US, and all were confirmed to have torsion. Performance analysis of US showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 98.8%. There was no significant difference between wait times of operated and non-operated patients. Time to US (P < 0.0001, r = 0.96) and time to OT (P < 0.0001, r = 0.64) correlated significantly with the total time from presentation to surgery.
CONCLUSION: There has been an improvement in the diagnostic performance of scrotal US for testicular torsion over the past 18 years. Quality improvement programmes targeted at reducing wait times for patients presenting with acute scrotum should target time to US and time to OT.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.