Summary Background 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03471494 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.
BackgroundWhile 3D laparoscopy increases surgical performance under laboratory conditions, it is unclear whether it improves outcomes in real clinical scenarios. The aim of this trial was to determine whether the 3D laparoscopy can enhance surgical efficacy in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCC).MethodThis prospective randomized controlled study was conducted between February 2015 and April 2017 in a day case unit of an academic teaching hospital. Patients scheduled for elective LCC were assessed for eligibility. The exclusion criteria were: (1) planned secondary operation in addition to LCC, (2) predicted to be high-risk for conversion, and (3) surgeons with less than five previous 3D laparoscopic procedures. Patients were operated on by 12 residents and 3 attendings. The primary endpoint was operation time. All surgeons were tested for stereoaquity (Randot® stereotest). The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357589).ResultsA total of 210 patients were randomized; 105 to 3D laparoscopy and 104 to 2D laparoscopy. Median operation time as similar in the 3D and 2D laparoscopy groups (49 min vs. 48 min, p = 0.703). Operation times were similar in subgroup analyses for surgeon’s sex (male vs. female), surgeon’s status (resident vs. attending), surgeon’s stereovision (stereopsis 10 vs. less than 10), surgeon’s experience (performed 200 LCCs or below versus over 200 LCCs), or patient’s BMI (≤ 25 vs. 25–30 vs. > 30). No differences in intra- or postoperative complications were noted between the 3D and 2D groups.Conclusion3D laparoscopy did not show any advantages over 2D laparoscopy in LCC.
Introduction Recently new standards for reporting outcomes of bile duct injury (BDI) have been proposed. It is unclear how these treatment outcomes are reflected in quality of life (QOL). The aim of this study was to report outcomes and QOL after repair of major BDI and compare repairs by hepatobiliary surgeon to repairs by non-hepatobiliary surgeons. Methods This was a retrospective study of patients treated for major (Strasberg E-type) BDI after cholecystectomy at a tertiary hepatobiliary center. Outcomes were assessed using Cho-Strasberg proposed standards. QOL was assessed using Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the gastrointestinal QOL-index (GIQLI). Patients undergoing uneventful cholecystectomy matched by age, urgency, and duration of follow-up were used as controls. Results Fifty-two patients with major BDI treated between 2000 and 2016 were included (42% male, median age 53 years). Thirty-seven (71%) patients attained primary patency (29 (83%) if primarily operated by a hepatobiliary surgeon). Actuarial primary patency rate (grade A result) at 1, 3, and 5 years was 58%, 56%, and 53% in the whole cohort, and 83%, 80%, and 80% in patients primary treated by a hepatobiliary surgeon, respectively. At 3-year follow-up 6 (11.5%) patients obtained grade B, 10 (19.2%) grade C, and 7 (13.5%) grade D result. QOL was similar in patients with BDI and controls (median SF-36 physical component 51.7 and 53.6, p = 1.0, mental component 53.3 and 53.4, p = 1.0, GIQLI 109.0 and 123.0, p = 0.174, respectively) at median 90 (IQR 70–116) months from cholecystectomy. QOL was similar regardless of outcome grade. Conclusion First attempt to repair a severe BDI should be undertaken by a hepatobiliary surgeon. However, long-term QOL is not affected even by severe BDI, and QOL is not associated with the grade of the outcome.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.