BJS Open最新文献

Background: This study assessed the influence of age, co-morbidity and frailty on 5-year survival outcomes after breast conservation surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy (RT) versus mastectomy (with or without RT) in women with early invasive breast cancer.

Methods: Women aged over 50 years with early invasive breast cancer diagnosed in England (2014-2019) who had breast surgery were identified from Cancer Registry data. Survival estimates were calculated from a flexible parametric survival model. A competing risk approach was used for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Standardized survival probabilities and cumulative incidence functions for breast cancer death were calculated for each treatment by age.

Results: Among 101 654 women, 72.2% received BCS + RT and 27.8% received mastectomy. Age, co-morbidity and frailty were associated with overall survival (OS), but only age and co-morbidity were associated with BCSS. Survival probabilities for OS were greater for BCS + RT (90.3%) versus mastectomy (87.0%), and the difference between treatments varied by age (50 years: 1.9% versus 80 years: 6.5%). Cumulative incidence functions for breast cancer death were higher after mastectomy (5.1%) versus BCS + RT (3.9%), but there was little change in the difference by age (50 years: 0.9% versus 80 years: 1.2%). The results highlight the change in baseline mortality risk by age for OS compared to the stable baseline for BCSS.

Conclusion: For OS, the difference in survival probabilities for BCS + RT and mastectomy increased slightly with age. The difference in cumulative incidence functions for breast cancer death by surgery type was small regardless of age. Evidence on real-world survival outcomes among older populations with breast cancer is informative for treatment decision-making.

Background: The introduction of the 1 mm cut-off for resection margin according to the Leeds Pathology Protocol has transformed the concept of surgical radicality. Its impact on nodal-positive resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of margin clearance on survival among resected, nodal-positive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients whose specimens were analysed according to the Leeds Pathology Protocol.

Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from multicentre clinical databases. Resected patients with nodal involvement were included. Overall survival and disease-free survival were analysed according to minimum reported margin clearances of 0, 0.5, 1, and 2 mm. The results are reported separately for patients who had not undergone venous resection and for patients for whom data were available regarding the superior mesenteric vein-facing margin or the vein specimen. The eighth edition of TNM classification by the AJCC was used.

Results: The study comprised 290 stage IIB patients and 215 stage III patients without venous resection. The superior mesenteric vein margin analysis comprised 127 stage IIB patients and 198 stage III patients. The different resection margin distances were not associated with overall survival and disease-free survival among patients without venous resection (P > 0.050). Receiving adjuvant therapy was associated with longer overall survival among stage IIB patients (P = 0.034) and stage III patients (P = 0.003) and with longer disease-free survival among stage III patients (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this study, a margin clearance greater than 1 mm showed no clear effect on overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with nodal involvement, whereas adjuvant therapy was confirmed to be essential to ensure longer overall survival.

Background: There is controversy regarding the maximum number of elements that can be included in a surgical site infection prevention bundle. In addition, it is unclear whether a bundle of this type can be implemented at a multicentre level.

Methods: A pragmatic, multicentre cohort study was designed to analyse surgical site infection rates in elective colorectal surgery after the sequential implementation of two preventive bundle protocols. Secondary outcomes were to determine compliance with individual measures and to establish their effectiveness, duration of stay, microbiology and 30-day mortality rate.

Results: A total of 32 205 patients were included. A 50% reduction in surgical site infection was achieved after the implementation of two sequential sets of bundles: from 18.16% in the Baseline group to 10.03% with Bundle-1 and 8.19% with Bundle-2. Bundle-2 reduced superficial-surgical site infection (OR 0.74 (95% c.i. 0.58 to 0.95); P = 0.018) and deep-surgical site infection (OR 0.66 (95% c.i. 0.46 to 0.93); P = 0.018) but not organ/space-surgical site infection (OR 0.88 (95% c.i. 0.74 to 1.06); P = 0.172). Compliance increased after the addition of four measures to Bundle-2. In the multivariable analysis, for organ/space-surgical site infection, laparoscopy, oral antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation were protective factors in colonic procedures, while no protective factors were found in rectal surgery. Duration of stay fell significantly over time, from 7 in the Baseline group to 6 and 5 days for Bundle-1 and Bundle-2 respectively (P < 0.001). The mortality rate fell from 1.4% in the Baseline group to 0.59% and 0.6% for Bundle-1 and Bundle-2 respectively (P < 0.001). There was an increase in Gram-positive bacteria and yeast isolation, and reduction in Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobes in organ/space-surgical site infection.

Conclusions: The addition of measures to create a final 10-measure protocol had a cumulative protective effect on reducing surgical site infection. However, organ/space-surgical site infection did not benefit from the addition. No protective measures were found for organ/space-surgical site infection in rectal surgery. Compliance with preventive measures increased from Bundle-1 to Bundle-2.

Background: A proportion of patients undergoing midline laparotomy will develop surgical site infections after surgery. These complications place considerable financial burden on healthcare economies and have negative implications for patient health and quality of life. The prophylactic application of negative pressure wound therapy devices has been mooted as a pragmatic strategy to reduce surgical site infections. Nevertheless, further availability of multicentre randomized clinical trial data evaluating the prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy following midline laparotomy is warranted to definitely provide consensus in relation to these closure methods, while also deciphering potential differences among subgroups. The aim of this study is to determine whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces postoperative wound complications in patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

Methods: PROPEL-2 is a multicentre prospective randomized clinical trial designed to compare standard surgical dressings (control arm) with negative pressure wound therapy dressings (Prevena™ and PICO™ being the most commonly utilized). Patient recruitment will include adult patients aged 18 years or over, who are indicated to undergo emergency or elective laparotomy. To achieve 90% power at the 5% significance level, 1006 patients will be required in each arm, which when allowing for losses to follow-up, 10% will be added to each arm, leaving the total projected sample size to be 2013 patients, who will be recruited across a 36-month enrolment period.

Conclusion: The PROPEL-2 trial will be the largest independent multicentre randomized clinical trial designed to assess the role of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in patients indicated to undergo midline laparotomy. The comparison of standard treatment to two commercially available negative pressure wound therapy devices will help provide consensus on the routine management of laparotomy wounds. Enrolment to PROPEL-2 began in June 2023. Registration number: NCT05977816 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Background: Existing research highlights the link between certain personality traits and mental health in surgeons. However, little research has explored the important role of psychological skills and qualities in potentially explaining this link. A cross-sectional survey of UK-based surgeons was used to examine whether two such skills (psychological flexibility and resilience) helped to explain why certain personality traits might be linked to mental health in surgeons.

Method: An online survey comprising measures of personality (neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness), psychological skills/qualities (psychological flexibility and resilience) and mental health (depression, anxiety, stress and burnout) was sent to surgeons practising in the UK. Mediation analyses were used to examine the potential mediating role of psychological flexibility and resilience in explaining the relationship between personality factors and mental health.

Results: A total of 348 surgeons completed the survey. In all 12 mediation models, psychological flexibility and/or resilience played a significant role in explaining the relationship between personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness) and mental health (depression, anxiety and burnout).

Conclusion: Findings suggest that it is not only a surgeon's personality that is associated with their mental health, but the extent to which a surgeon demonstrates specific psychological qualities and skills (psychological flexibility and resilience). This has important implications for improving surgeons' mental wellbeing, because psychological flexibility and resilience are malleable, and can be successfully targeted with interventions in a way that personality traits cannot.

Background: The evolution and outcomes of extended pancreatectomies at a single institute over 15 years are presented in this study.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of the institutional database was performed from 2015 to 2022 (period B). Patients undergoing extended pancreatic resections, as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery, were included. Perioperative and survival outcomes were compared with data from 2007-2015 (period A). Regression analyses were used to identify factors affecting postoperative and long-term survival outcomes.

Results: A total of 197 (16.1%) patients underwent an extended resection in period B compared to 63 (9.2%) in period A. Higher proportions of borderline resectable (5 (18.5%) versus 51 (47.7%), P = 0.011) and locally advanced tumours (1 (3.7%) versus 24 (22.4%), P < 0.001) were resected in period B with more frequent use of neoadjuvant therapy (6 (22.2%) versus 79 (73.8%), P < 0.001). Perioperative mortality (4 (6.0%) versus 12 (6.1%), P = 0.81) and morbidity (23 (36.5%) versus 83 (42.1%), P = 0.57) rates were comparable. The overall survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma was similar in both periods (17.5 (95% c.i. 6.77 to 28.22) versus 18.3 (95% c.i. 7.91 to 28.68) months, P = 0.958). Resectable, node-positive tumours had a longer disease-free survival (DFS) in period B (5.81 (95% c.i. 1.73 to 9.89) versus 14.03 (95% c.i. 5.7 to 22.35) months, P = 0.018).

Conclusion: Increasingly complex pancreatic resections were performed with consistent perioperative outcomes and improved DFS compared to the earlier period. A graduated approach to escalating surgical complexity, multimodality treatment, and judicious patient selection enables the resection of advanced pancreatic tumours.

Background: The quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in rectal cancer surgery is assessed with a three-tier grade (mesorectal, intramesorectal and muscularis propria). This study aimed to analyse the prognostic impact of the total mesorectal excision grade on survival, and to identify risk factors for intramesorectal and muscularis propria resection in a population-based setting.

Methods: All patients in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry with rectal cancer stage I-III ≤ 10 cm from the anal verge, diagnosed 2015-2019, undergoing total mesorectal excision were analysed. Clinical, surgical and pathological data were retrieved and analysed for the following primary outcomes: local and distant recurrence and overall and relative survival; secondary outcomes were risk factors for total mesorectal excision grading (intramesorectal or muscularis propria resection). Of note, postoperative death < 30 days or recurrence within 90 days were exclusion criteria for survival and recurrence analysis. Recurrence-free patients with less than 3 years follow-up, and patients lacking data regarding recurrence, were also excluded from recurrence analyses.

Results: Overall, of 7979 patients treated during the study interval, 1499 patients were eligible for recurrence, 2441 patients for survival and 2476 patients for risk-factor analyses, of which 75% were graded mesorectal, 17% intramesorectal and 8% muscularis propria. Median follow-up for survival was 42 (1-77) months. The worst total mesorectal excision grading (muscularis propria resection) was an independent risk factor for local recurrence in multivariable analysis (HR 2.73, 95% c.i. 1.07 to 7.0, P = 0.036). Total mesorectal excision grade had no impact on distant recurrence or survival. Female sex, tumour level <5 cm, abdominoperineal resection, minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic and robotic), high blood loss, long duration of surgery and intraoperative perforation were independent risk factors for worse total mesorectal excision grading (intramesorectal and/or muscularis propria resection) in multivariable analyses.

Conclusion: Muscularis propria resection increases the risk of local recurrence but does not seem to affect distant recurrence or survival.