Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has expanded the utilization of telemedicine in clinical practice to minimize potential risks to both patients and providers. We aim to describe the perception of telemedicine by both surgical patients and providers to understand the preferences for future incorporation in future surgical practice. Methods An anonymous survey was administered to providers that transitioned clinic visits to telemedicine encounters since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the second part of the study, patients who underwent video telemedicine appointments answered survey questions via telephone. Results Twenty-six out of 36 (72.7%) providers responded. Over 75% reported that they could effectively communicate with patients over telemedicine. Six (23.1%) reported that they could adequately assess surgical sites. Of 361 patients, 187 consented to the study (consent rate 51.8%). Among patients, the most common result to choose a telemedicine appointment was to avoid the risk of COVID-19 transmission (84, 44.9%), though the minority reported that they would choose telemedicine after the pandemic (64, 34.2%). Those patients who would choose an in-person visit were more likely to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Score, body mass index, and use friends or family for transportation. In open-ended feedback, patients suggested that telemedicine would be better suited for long-term follow-up rather than the immediate postoperative setting. Conclusions Patients and providers reported a high degree of satisfaction using telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic but noted concern with limited physical examinations. Telemedicine may be suited for preoperative evaluation and medium-term and long-term postoperative follow-up for surgical patients.
Background Duodenal adenocarcinoma treatment consists of either simple or radical surgical resection. Existing evidence suggests similar survival outcomes between the two but is limited by small numbers and single-institution analysis. We aim to compare survival after partial versus radical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Using NCDB results from 2004 to 2014, we compared patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma undergoing partial resection (n = 1247) and radical resection (n = 1240) by age, sex, facility type, facility location, cancer stage, cancer grade, lymph node sampling, node status, tumor size, margin status, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy using chi-square analysis. Survival was compared using propensity matching. Results Patients undergoing partial resection had overall earlier cancer stage, more favorable tumor grade, and were less likely to undergo lymph node sampling and neoadjuvant therapy. When overall survival was compared between the 2 propensity-matched groups, the median survival was 46.7 months after partial resection and 43.2 months after radical resection ( P = .329), and overall survival was similar between the 2 groups ( P = .894). The use of adjuvant therapy demonstrated improved survival over either surgery alone ( P < .0001, P = .0037). Conclusion Partial resection did not demonstrate worse survival outcomes than radical resection for duodenal adenocarcinoma. The use of adjuvant therapy in addition to surgery demonstrated improved survival regardless of surgery type and played a larger role in survival than the type of surgery. Our findings provide evidence to support the continued use of both partial and radical surgical resections to treat duodenal malignancy.
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.