Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome due to coronavirus 2 has rapidly spread worldwide in an unprecedented pandemic. Patients with an ongoing COVID-19 infection requiring surgery have higher risk of mortality and complications. This study describes the mortality and morbidity in patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection undergoing elective and emergency surgeries. Methods Prospective cohort of consecutive patients who required a general, gastroesophageal, hepatobiliary, colorectal, or emergency surgery during COVID-19 pandemic at an academic teaching hospital. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and major complications. Secondary outcomes were specific respiratory mortality and complications. Results A total of 701 patients underwent surgery, 39 (5.6%) with a perioperative COVID-19 infection. 30-day mortality was 12.8% and 1.4% in patients with and without COVID-19 infection, respectively (p \ 0.001). Major surgical complications occurred in 25.6% and 6.8% in patients with and without COVID-19 infection, respectively (p \ 0.001). Respiratory complications occurred in 30.8% and 1.4% in patients with and without COVID-19 infection, respectively (p \ 0.001). Mortality due to a respiratory complication was 100% and 11.1% in patients with and without COVID-19 infection, respectively (p \ 0.006). Conclusions 30-day mortality and surgical complications are higher in patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection. Indications for elective surgery need to be reserved for non-deferrable procedures in order to avoid unnecessary risks of non-urgent procedures.
Summary and background data Recent coronavirus outbreak and “stay at home” policies have accelerated the implementation of virtual healthcare. Many surgery departments are implementing telemedicine to enhance remote perioperative care. However, concern still arises regarding the safety of this modality in postoperative follow-up after gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of the present prospective study is to compare the use of telemedicine clinics to in-person follow-up for postoperative care after gastrointestinal surgery during COVID-19 outbreak. Methods Prospective study that included all abdominal surgery patients operated since the COVID-19 outbreak. On discharge, patients were given the option to perform their postoperative follow-up appointment by telemedicine or by in-person clinics. Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up variables were analyzed. Results Among 219 patients who underwent abdominal surgery, 106 (48%) had their postoperative follow-up using telemedicine. There were no differences in age, gender, ASA score, and COVID-19 positive rate between groups. Patients who preferred telemedicine over in-person follow-up were more likely to have undergone laparoscopic surgery (71% vs. 51%, P = 0.037) and emergency surgery (55% vs. 41%; P = 0.038). Morbidity rate for telemedicine and in-person group was 5.7% and 8%, ( P = 0.50). Only 2.8% of patients needed an in-person visit following the telemedicine consult, and 1.9% visited the emergency department. Conclusions In the current pandemic, telemedicine follow-up can be safely and effectively performed in selected surgical patients. Patients who underwent laparoscopic and emergency procedures opted more for telemedicine than in-person follow-up.
Background Feedback is a pivotal cornerstone and a challenge in psychomotor training. There are different teaching methodologies; however, some may be less effective. Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in 130 medical students to compare the effectiveness of the video‐guided learning (VLG), peer‐feedback (PFG) and the expert feedback (EFG) for teaching suturing skills. The program lasted 4 weeks. Students were recorded making 3‐simple stitches (pre‐assessment and post‐assessment). The primary outcome was a global scale (OSATS). The secondary outcomes were performance time, specific rating scale (SRS) and the impact of the intervention (IOI), defined as the variation between the final and initial OSATS and SRS scores. Results No significant differences were found between PFG and EFG in post‐assessment results of OSATS, SRS scores or in the IOI for OSATS and SRS scores. Post‐assessment results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in OSATS and SRS scores [(19.8 (18.5–21); 16.6 (15.5–17.5)) and (20.3 (19.88–21); 16.8 (16–17.5)) vs (15.7 (15–16); 13.3 (12.5–14)) (p < 0.05)], respectively. The results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in the IOI for OSATS [7 (4.5–9) and 7.4 (4.88–10) vs 3.5 (1.5–6) (p < 0.05)] and SRS scores [5.4 (3.5–7) and 6.3 (4–8.5) vs 3.1 (1.13–4.88) (p < 0.05)], respectively. Conclusion The video‐guided learning methodology without any kind of feedback is not enough for teaching suturing skills compared to expert or peer feedback. The peer feedback methodology appears to be a viable alternative to handling the emerging demands in medical education.
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.