21 research outputs found
Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery: An international, prospective cohort study
No full textSafety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery: An international, prospective cohort study
No full textAim: Intraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. Method: COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo III–V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement. Results: Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48–5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61–1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67–2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91–1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87–2.99, p = 0.128). Conclusion: This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery
Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. An international, prospective cohort study
No full textIntraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. Method: COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement. Results: Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48-5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61-1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67-2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87-2.99, p = 0.128). Conclusion: This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery
Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: International matched, prospective, cohort study
No full textIntraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study
No full textBACKGROUND: Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. METHODS: COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. RESULTS: Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk
Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study
No full textMany surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice
Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries
No full text© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 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
Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study
No full text© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study
No full textEarly death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide
Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules (THYCOVID): a retrospective, international, multicentre, cross-sectional study
No full textBackground Since its outbreak in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has diverted resources from non-urgent and elective procedures, leading to diagnosis and treatment delays, with an increased number of neoplasms at advanced stages worldwide. The aims of this study were to quantify the reduction in surgical activity for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic; and to evaluate whether delays in surgery led to an increased occurrence of aggressive tumours.Methods In this retrospective, international, cross-sectional study, centres were invited to participate in June 22, 2022; each centre joining the study was asked to provide data from medical records on all surgical thyroidectomies consecutively performed from Jan 1, 2019, to Dec 31, 2021. Patients with indeterminate thyroid nodules were divided into three groups according to when they underwent surgery: from Jan 1, 2019, to Feb 29, 2020 (global prepandemic phase), from March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021 (pandemic escalation phase), and from June 1 to Dec 31, 2021 (pandemic decrease phase). The main outcomes were, for each phase, the number of surgeries for indeterminate thyroid nodules, and in patients with a postoperative diagnosis of thyroid cancers, the occurrence of tumours larger than 10 mm, extrathyroidal extension, lymph node metastases, vascular invasion, distant metastases, and tumours at high risk of structural disease recurrence. Univariate analysis was used to compare the probability of aggressive thyroid features between the first and third study phases. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05178186.Findings Data from 157 centres (n=49 countries) on 87 467 patients who underwent surgery for benign and malignant thyroid disease were collected, of whom 22 974 patients (18 052 [78 center dot 6%] female patients and 4922 [21 center dot 4%] male patients) received surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules. We observed a significant reduction in surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the pandemic escalation phase (median monthly surgeries per centre, 1 center dot 4 [IQR 0 center dot 6-3 center dot 4]) compared with the prepandemic phase (2 center dot 0 [0 center dot 9-3 center dot 7]; p<0 center dot 0001) and pandemic decrease phase (2 center dot 3 [1 center dot 0-5 center dot 0]; p<0 center dot 0001). Compared with the prepandemic phase, in the pandemic decrease phase we observed an increased occurrence of thyroid tumours larger than 10 mm (2554 [69 center dot 0%] of 3704 vs 1515 [71 center dot 5%] of 2119; OR 1 center dot 1 [95% CI 1 center dot 0-1 center dot 3]; p=0 center dot 042), lymph node metastases (343 [9 center dot 3%] vs 264 [12 center dot 5%]; OR 1 center dot 4 [1 center dot 2-1 center dot 7]; p=0 center dot 0001), and tumours at high risk of structural disease recurrence (203 [5 center dot 7%] of 3584 vs 155 [7 center dot 7%] of 2006; OR 1 center dot 4 [1 center dot 1-1 center dot 7]; p=0 center dot 0039).Interpretation Our study suggests that the reduction in surgical activity for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic period could have led to an increased occurrence of aggressive thyroid tumours. However, other compelling hypotheses, including increased selection of patients with aggressive malignancies during this period, should be considered. We suggest that surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules should no longer be postponed even in future instances of pandemic escalation.Funding None.Copyright (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
