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...
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a disruption of surgical care. The aim of this multi-centric, retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on surgical activity for thyroid disease among the Italian Units of Endocrine Surgery. Three phases of the pandemic were identified based on the epidemiological situation and the public measures adopted from the Italian Government (1st phase: from 9th March to 3rd May 2020; 2nd phase: from 4th May to 14th June; 3rd phase: from 15th June to 31st). The patients operated upon during these phases were compared to those who underwent surgery during the same period of the previous year. Overall, 3892 patients from 28 Italian endocrine surgical units were included in the study, 1478 (38%) operated upon during COVID-19 pandemic, and 2414 (62%) during the corresponding period of 2019. The decrease in the number of operations was by 64.8%, 44.7% and 5.1% during the three phases of COVID-19 pandemic, compared to 2019, respectively. During the first and the second phases, the surgical activity was dedicated mainly to oncological patients. No differences in post-operative complications were noted between the two periods. Oncological activity for thyroid cancer was adequately maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It has been shown that the use of drain in thyroid surgery does not reduce the reoperation rate for hemorrhage. The aim of this systematic review was to update the knowledge of the role of drain in thyroid surgery in term of postoperative complications, pain and hospital length of stay (LOS). A systematic search was performed in the PubMed and Embase database to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes in patients who underwent thyroidectomy or lobectomy with or without drainage. The primary outcome was reoperation rate for bleeding; the secondary outcomes were development of hematoma, seroma, and wound infection; postoperative pain evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at the postoperative day (POD) 1, and hospital LOS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confident intervals (95% CI) were used for dichotomous variables; mean differences (MDs) and 95% CI for continuous variables. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated and its degree was quantified by the I2 statistic. Twenty RCTs were included, with 2,204 patients enrolled. No difference was found between the two groups in term of reoperation [RR 1.13 (0.43, 2.95); I2 =0%], hematoma [RR 1.18 (0.71, 1.95); I2 =0%], and seroma [RR 0.82 (0.44, 1.53); I2 =0%]. Patients with drain had higher postoperative pain [MD 1.91 (1.30, 2.53); I2 =97%], prolonged hospital LOS [MD 1.34 (0.91, 1.76) days; I2 =98%], and increased wound infection rate [RR 2.82(1.36, 5.86); I2 =0%], even though the latter was not confirmed in the sensitivity analysis including only studies with ≥100 patients per trial. The use of drain after thyroid surgery increase postoperative pain and hospital LOS, with no decrease of reoperation rate, hematoma and seroma formation. An increased wound infection rate in patients with drain is suggested, but a large RCT should be performed to confirm this correlation.
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.