No abstract

Background: The aim of this post hoc analysis of a large cohort study was to evaluate the association between night-time surgery and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (AEs) and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: LAS VEGAS (Local Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Surgery) was a prospective international 1-week study that enrolled adult patients undergoing surgical procedures with general anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. Surgeries were defined as occurring during 'daytime' when induction of anaesthesia was between 8:00 AM and 7:59 PM, and as 'night-time' when induction was between 8:00 PM and 7:59 AM. Results: Of 9861 included patients, 555 (5.6%) underwent surgery during night-time. The proportion of patients who developed intraoperative AEs was higher during night-time surgery in unmatched (43.6% vs 34.1%; P<0.001) and propensity-matched analyses (43.7% vs 36.8%; P¼0.029). PPCs also occurred more often in patients who underwent night-time surgery (14% vs 10%; P¼0.004) in an unmatched cohort analysis, although not in a propensity-matched analysis (13.8% vs 11.8%; P¼0.39). In a multivariable regression model, including patient characteristics and types of surgery and anaesthesia, night-time surgery was independently associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative AEs (odds ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.09e1.90; P¼0.01), but not with a higher incidence of PPCs (odds ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.89e1.90; P¼0.15). Conclusions: Intraoperative adverse events and postoperative pulmonary complications occurred more often in patients undergoing night-time surgery. Imbalances in patients' clinical characteristics, types of surgery, and intraoperative management at night-time partially explained the higher incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, but not the higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT01601223.

Background Wire localization is historically the most common method for guiding excision of non-palpable breast lesions, but there are limitations to the technique. Newer technologies such as magnetic seeds may allow some of these challenges to be overcome. The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of wire and magnetic seed localization techniques. Methods Women undergoing standard wire or magnetic seed localization for non-palpable lesions between August 2018 and August 2020 were recruited prospectively to this IDEAL stage 2a/2b platform cohort study. The primary outcome was effectiveness defined as accurate localization and removal of the index lesion. Secondary endpoints included safety, specimen weight and reoperation rate for positive margins. Results Data were accrued from 2300 patients in 35 units; 2116 having unifocal, unilateral breast lesion localization. Identification of the index lesion in magnetic-seed-guided (946 patients) and wire-guided excisions (1170 patients) was 99.8 versus 99.1 per cent (P = 0.048). There was no difference in overall complication rate. For a subset of patients having a single lumpectomy only for lesions less than 50 mm (1746 patients), there was no difference in median closest margin (2 mm versus 2 mm, P = 0.342), re-excision rate (12 versus 13 per cent, P = 0.574) and specimen weight in relation to lesion size (0.15 g/mm2  versus 0.138 g/mm2, P = 0.453). Conclusion Magnetic seed localization demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to those of wire localization. This study has established a robust platform for the comparative evaluation of new localization devices.

No abstract

BackgroundIt is now recognised that the majority of breast surgery can be safely undertaken as day case procedures. We aimed to evaluate the effect of pectoral nerve (Pecs2) blocks on recovery parameters and day case rates in patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer.MethodsA prospective cohort study was performed in a single NHS Foundation trust between 1st April 2014 and 31st December 2016. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (0–10) at 4 and 8 h, episodes of post-operative nausea ± vomiting (PONV), opioid use and day case outcome were compared between Pecs2 and no Pecs2 groups.Results22 patients underwent general anaesthesia (GA) + Pecs2 block and 30 GA ± local anaesthetic infiltration.Mean pain scores were significantly lower in the Pecs2 (2.5) vs no Pecs2 (4.6) group at 4 h (p = 0.0132) and 8 h, Pecs2 (1.9) vs no Pecs2 (3.6) (p = 0.0038).Episodes of PONV requiring additional anti-emetic were lower and statistically significant in the Pecs2 group (2/22, 9%) than the no Pecs2 group (14/30, 46%), (p = 0.005).Additional opioid use was significantly lower in the Pecs2 group (4/22, 18%) than in the no Pecs2 group (14/30, 46%) (p = 0.0423).18 patients in the Pecs2 group were discharged the same day in contrast to just 3 patients in the no Pecs2 group. This was highly statistically significant (p = 0.0001).ConclusionsPecs2 blocks can significantly reduce post-operative pain, nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing mastectomy. Their use can enable units to achieve high day-case mastectomy rates.