Annals of surgery最新文献

Objective: To quantify recent trends in access to timely, high-quality, affordable surgical care in the US.

Background: Insufficient access to surgical care remains an ongoing concern in the US. Previous attempts to understand and quantify barriers in access to surgical care in the US lack a comprehensive, policy-relevant lens.

Methods: This observational cross-sectional study evaluates multiple domains of access to surgical care across the US from 2011-2015 and 2016-2020. Our stepwise model included timeliness (<60-minute drive time), quality (surgically capable hospital with ≥3 CMS stars), and affordability (neither uninsured nor underinsured) of access to surgical care using a novel combination of data from the American Hospital Association, Medicare claims, CMS's Five-Star Quality Rating System, the American Community Survey, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Results: The number of Americans lacking access to timely, high-quality, affordable surgical care increased from 97.7 million in 2010-2015 to 98.7 million in 2016-2020. Comparing these two periods, we found improvements in the number of Americans lacking access due to being uninsured (decrease from 38.5 to 26.5 million). However, these improvements were offset by increasing numbers of Americans for whom timeliness (increase from 9.5 to 14.1 million), quality (increase from 3.4 to 4.9 million), and underinsured status (increase from 46.3 to 53.1 million) increased as barriers to access. Multiple sensitivity analyses using alternative thresholds for each access domain demonstrated similar trends. Those with insufficient access to care tended to be more rural (6.7% vs. 2.0%, P<0.001), lower income (40.7% vs. 30.0%, P<0.001), and of Hispanic ethnicity (35.9% vs. 15.8%, P<0.001).

Conclusions: Nearly one-in-three Americans lack access to surgical care that is timely, high-quality, and affordable. This study identifies the multiple actionable drivers of access to surgical care that notably can each be addressed with specific policy interventions.

Objective: To examine perceived OR ergonomics facilitators and barriers, with a focus on the interdisciplinary team.

Summary background data: Poor ergonomics causes musculoskeletal injuries affecting all operating room (OR) staff with repercussions on patient care, outcomes, and sustainability. Lack of ergonomic awareness and education are risk factors.

Methods: We conducted a self-administered web-based survey of OR nurses, surgeons, and anesthesiologists at a single centre (n=238). We developed a questionnaire through items generation and reduction, followed by reliability and validity testing.

Results: Response rate was 53.8%. Respondents perceived that on average 80% of nurses, 70% of surgeons, and 40% anesthesiologists experienced MSK injuries, with no difference in professional groups' perceptions. Guideline ergonomics interventions were rarely used (<25%) except for specialized clothing (33%), equipment repositioning (59%), and seating (37%), though perceived beneficial by 80-90%. Reported barriers to optimal ergonomics were organizational/structural (lack of time, space, equipment, funding), whereas solutions were individual. Fear of unfavourable perception from others was a concern for 62%. Teams discussing, prioritizing, monitoring, or helping with ergonomics was indicated by <50%. Individual ergonomic adaptations were perceived as convenience by other staff.

Conclusions: While structural/organizational issues are reported as barriers to ergonomics, solutions appeared as individual responsibilities. Team dynamics did not prioritize nor support ergonomics. Education tools leveraging the interdisciplinary team are warranted. This work will be supplemented by interviews and live observations to build tailored educational tools for OR teams.

Objective: To evaluate machine learning models' performance in predicting acute pancreatitis severity using early-stage variables while excluding laboratory and imaging tests.

Summary background data: Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) affects approximately 20% of acute pancreatitis (AP) patients and is associated with high mortality rates. Accurate early prediction of SAP and in-hospital mortality is crucial for effective management. Traditional scores such as APACHE-II and BISAP are complex and require laboratory tests, while early predictive models are lacking. Machine learning (ML) has shown promising results in predictive modelling, potentially outperforming traditional methods.

Methods: We analysed data from a prospective database of AP patients admitted to Vall d'Hebron Hospital from November 2015 to January 2022. Inclusion criteria were adults diagnosed with AP according to the 2012 Atlanta classification. Data included basal characteristics, current medication, and vital signs. We developed machine learning models to predict SAP, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The modelling process included two stages: Stage 0, which used basal characteristics and medication, and Stage 1, which included data from Stage 0 and vital signs.

Results: Out of 634 cases, 594 were analysed. The Stage 0 model showed AUC values of 0.698 for mortality, 0.721 for ICU admission, and 0.707 for persistent organ failure. The Stage 1 model improved performance with AUC values of 0.849 for mortality, 0.786 for ICU admission, and 0.783 for persistent organ failure. The models demonstrated comparable or superior performance to APACHE-II and BISAP scores.

Conclusions: The ML models showed good predictive capacity for SAP, ICU admission, and mortality using early-stage data without laboratory or imaging tests. This approach could revolutionise AP patients' initial triage and management, providing a personalised prediction method based on early clinical data.

Objective: To assess the impact of normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) on patients, medical teams, and costs by gathering global insights and exploring current limitations.

Background: NMP for ex situ liver graft perfusion is gaining increasing attention for its capability to extend graft preservation. It has the potential to transform liver transplantation (LT) from an urgent to a purely elective procedure, which could revolutionize LT logistics, reduce burden on patients and health care providers, and decrease costs.

Methods: A 31-item survey was sent to international transplant directors to gather their NMP experiences and vision. In addition, we performed a systematic review on cost-analysis in LT and assessed studies on cost-benefit in converting urgent-to-elective procedures. We compared the costs of available NMPs and conducted a sensitivity analysis of NMP's cost benefits.

Results: Of 120 transplant programs contacted, 64 (53%) responded, spanning North America (31%), Europe (42%), Asia (22%), and South America (5%). Of the total, 60% had adopted NMP, with larger centers (>100 transplants/year) in North America and Europe more likely to use it. The main NMP systems were OrganOx-metra (39%), XVIVO (36%), and TransMedics-OCS (15%). Despite NMP adoption, 41% of centers still perform >50% of LTs at nights/weekends. Centers recognized NMP's benefits, including improved work satisfaction and patient outcomes, but faced challenges like high costs and machine complexity. 16% would invest $100,000 to 500'000, 33% would invest $50,000 to 100'000, 38% would invest $10,000 to 50'000, and 14% would invest <$10,000 in NMP. These results were strengthened by a cost analysis for NMP in emergency-to-elective LT transition. Accordingly, while liver perfusions with disposables up to $10,000 resulted in overall positive net balances, this effect was lost when disposables' cost amounted to >$40,000/organ.

Conclusions: The adoption of NMP is hindered by high costs and operational complexity. Making LT elective through NMP could reduce costs and improve outcomes, but overcoming barriers requires national reimbursements and simplified, automated NMP systems for multiday preservation.

Objective: This study describes the effects of introducing a protocol omitting preoperative α-blockade dose-escalation (de-escalation) in a prospective patient group.

Background: The decline of mortality and morbidity associated with pheochromocytoma resection is frequently attributed to the introduction of preoperative α-blockade. Current protocols require preoperative α-blockade dose-escalation and multiple-day hospital admissions. However, correlating evidence is lacking. Moreover, recent data suggest equal perioperative safety regardless of preoperative α-blockade escalation.

Methods: Single-institution evaluation of protocol implementation, including patients who underwent adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma between 2015 and 2023. Intraoperative hemodynamic control was regulated by active adjustment of blood pressure using vasoactive agents. The primary outcome was intraoperative hypertension, defined as the time-weighted average of systolic blood pressure (TWA-SBP) above 200 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes included perioperative hypotension, postoperative blood pressure support requirement, hospital stay duration, and complications.

Results: Of 102 pheochromocytoma patients, 82 were included; 44 in the de-escalated preoperative α-adrenergic protocol and 38 following the previous dose-escalation protocol. Median [IQR] TWA-SBP above 200 mm Hg was 0.01 [0.0-0.4] mm Hg in the de-escalated group versus 0.0 [0.0-0.1] mm Hg in the dose-escalated group ( P =0.073). The median duration of postoperative continuous norepinephrine administration was 0.3 hours [0.0-5.5] versus 5.1 hours [0.0-14.3], respectively ( P =0.003). Postoperative symptomatic hypotension occurred in 34.2% versus 9.1% of patients ( P =0.005). Median hospital stay was 2.5 days [1.9-3.6] versus 7.1 days [6.0-11.9] ( P <0.001). No significant differences in complication rates were observed.

Conclusion: Our data suggest that adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma employing a de-escalated preoperative α-blockade protocol is safe and results in a shorter hospital stay.

Objective: To clarify the impact of the preoperative time intervals on short-term postoperative and pathologic outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy.

Background: The impact of preoperative intervals on patients with esophageal cancer who received multimodality treatment remains unknown.

Methods: Patients (cT1-4aN0-3M0) treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy were included using the Dutch national DUCA database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effect of different time intervals upon short-term postoperative and pathologic outcomes: diagnosis-to-nCRT intervals (≤5, 5-8, and 8-12 weeks), nCRT-to-surgery intervals (5-11, 11-17, and >17 weeks) and total preoperative intervals (≤16, 16-25, and >25 weeks).

Results: Between 2010 and 2021, a total of 5052 patients were included. Compared with diagnosis-to-nCRT interval ≤5 weeks, the interval of 8 to 12 weeks was associated with a higher risk of overall complications ( P =0.049). Compared with nCRT-to-surgery interval of 5 to 11 weeks, the longer intervals (11-17 and >17 weeks) were associated with a higher risk of overall complications ( P =0.016; P <0.001) and anastomotic leakage ( P =0.004; P =0.030), but the interval >17 weeks was associated with lower risk of ypN+ ( P =0.021). The longer total preoperative intervals were not associated with the risk of 30-day mortality and complications compared with the interval ≤16 weeks, but the longer total preoperative interval (>25 weeks) was associated with higher ypT stage ( P =0.010) and lower pathologic complete response rate ( P =0.013).

Conclusions: In patients with esophageal cancer undergoing nCRT and esophagectomy, prolonged preoperative time intervals may lead to higher morbidity and disease progression, and the causal relationship requires further confirmation.

Objective: To study outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) in patients also treated for colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently metastasizes to the liver and peritoneum and is associated with a poor prognosis. In selected patients, a benefit in overall survival (OS) was shown for both peritoneal metastases (PM-CRC) offered CRS-HIPEC, and CLM treated with surgical resection. However, the presence of CLM was considered a relative contraindication to CRS-HIPEC, causing a paucity of outcome data in this patient group.

Methods: Patients with PM-CRC having CRS-HIPEC at a single national center between 2007 and 2023, with additional intervention for CLM, were included (previous curative treatment for extraperitoneal and extrahepatic metastases was allowed). Three groups were defined: CLM before CRS-HIPEC (pre-CRS-HIPEC), CLM resected simultaneously with CRS-HIPEC (sim-CRS-HIPEC), and CLM after CRS-HIPEC (post-CRS-HIPEC), aiming to retrospectively analyze outcomes.

Results: Fifty-seven patients were included and classified as: pre-CRS-HIPEC (n = 11), sim-CRS-HIPEC (n = 29), and post-CRS-HIPEC (n = 17). Median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 8; 13 patients had severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3), and no 90-day mortality. Median OS was 48 months after CRS-HIPEC. PCI was a predictor of OS (hazard ratio: 1.11, P < 0.001). We observed no difference in short or long-term outcomes between intervention groups.

Discussion: This study demonstrated that patients with CLM having CRS-HIPEC had comparable OS to reports on CRS-HIPEC only, likely explained by a low PCI. Simultaneous CLM resection did not increase the risk of severe complications.

Conclusions: In this national cohort, CRS-HIPEC and CLM intervention offers long-term survival, suggesting that this treatment may be offered to selected patients with PM-CRC and CLM.

Objective: To determine the interobserver variability for complications of pancreatoduodenectomy as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) and others.

Background: Good interobserver variability for the definitions of surgical complications is of major importance in comparing surgical outcomes between and within centers. However, data on interobserver variability for pancreatoduodenectomy-specific complications are lacking.

Methods: International cross-sectional multicenter study including 52 raters from 13 high-volume pancreatic centers in 8 countries on 3 continents. Per center, 4 experienced raters scored 30 randomly selected patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. In addition, all raters scored 6 standardized case vignettes. This variability and the "within centers" variability were calculated for 2-fold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B/C) and 3-fold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B vs grade C) of postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatoduodenectomy hemorrhage, chyle leak, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. Interobserver variability is presented with Gwet AC-1 measure for agreement.

Results: Overall, 390 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The overall agreement rate for the standardized cases vignettes for 2-fold scoring was 68% (95% CI: 55%-81%, AC1 score: moderate agreement), and for 3-fold scoring 55% (49%-62%, AC1 score: fair agreement). The mean "within centers" agreement for 2-fold scoring was 84% (80%-87%, AC1 score; substantial agreement).

Conclusions: The interobserver variability for the ISGPS-defined complications of pancreatoduodenectomy was too high even though the "within centers" agreement was acceptable. Since these findings will decrease the quality and validity of clinical studies, ISGPS has started efforts aimed at reducing the interobserver variability.