The safety and acceptability of using telehealth for follow-up of patients following cancer surgery: a systematic review

Introduction: Although virtual consultations have played an increasing role in delivery of healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic has hastened their adoption. Furthermore, virtual consultations are now being adopted in areas that were previously considered unsuitable, including post-operative visits for patients undergoing major surgical procedures, and surveillance following cancer operations. This review aims to examine the feasibility, safety, and patient satisfaction with virtual follow-up appointments after cancer operations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted along PRISMA guidelines. Studies where patients underwent surgical resection of a malignancy with at least one study arm describing virtual follow-ups were included. Studies were assessed for quality. Outcomes including adverse events, detection of recurrence and patient and provider satisfaction were assessed and compared for those undergoing virtual or in-person post-operative visits. Results: Eleven studies, with 3369 patients were included. Cancer types included were gynecological, colorectal, esophageal, lung, thyroid, breast, prostate and major HPB resections. Detection of recurrence and readmission rates were similar when comparing virtual consultations with in-person visits. Most studies showed high patient and healthcare provider satisfaction with virtual consultations following cancer resection. Concerns were raised about the integration of virtual consultations into workflows in fee-for-service settings, where reimbursement for virtual care may be an issue. Conclusion: Virtual follow-up care can provide timely and safe consultations in surgical oncology. Virtual consultations are as safe as in-person visits for assessing complications and recurrence. Where appropriate, virtual consultations can safely be integrated into the post-operative care pathway for those undergoing resection of malignancy.</p

Omission of intraoperative pyloric procedures in minimally invasive esophagectomy: assessing the impact on patients

Pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy is often undertaken during esophagectomy to aid gastric emptying postoperatively. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) frequently omits a pyloric procedure. The impact on perioperative outcomes and the need for subsequent interventions is unclear. This study assesses the requirements for endoscopic balloon dilation of the pylorus (EPD) following MIE. Patients undergoing MIE from 2016 to 2020 were reviewed. Patients undergoing open resection, or an intraoperative pyloric procedure were excluded. Demographic, clinical and pathological data were reviewed. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed as appropriate. In total, 171 patients underwent MIE. There were no differences in age (median 65 vs. 65 years, P = 0.6), pathological stage (P = 0.10) or ASA status (P = 0.52) between those requiring and not requiring endoscopic pyloric dilation (EPD). Forty-three patients (25%) required EPD, with a total of 71 procedures. Twenty-seven patients (16%) had EPD on their index admission. Seventy-five patients (43%) had a postoperative complication. Higher ASA status was associated with increased requirement for EPD (odds ratio 10.8, P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, there was no association between the need for a pyloric procedure and overall survival (P = 0.14). Eight patients (5%) required insertion of a feeding jejunostomy in the postoperative period, with no difference between those with or without EPD (P = 0.11). Two patients required subsequent surgical pyloromyotomy for delayed gastric emptying. Although pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy can safely be excluded during MIE, a quarter of patients will require postoperative EPD procedures. The impact of excluding pyloric procedures on gastric emptying requires further study. </p

Nodal yield <15 is associated with reduced survival in esophagectomy and is a quality metric

Background: Surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy remains the cornerstone of curative management of esophageal adenocarcinoma and is frequently used for squamous cell carcinoma. The optimal extent of lymphadenectomy and whether increasing lymph node yields confer a survival benefit remains unclear. Guidelines suggest resecting and examining a minimum of 15 lymph nodes at esophagectomy. This study assessed the impact of lymph node yield and lymph node ratio (LNR) on survival, identifying factors influencing nodal yield and radicality of resection. Methods: All patients undergoing esophagectomy with curative intent at a single institution (stage 1-4 inclusive) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, were reviewed. Clinical and pathologic variables were interrogated. LNR was calculated by dividing positive lymph nodes by the total nodes resected. Results: Esophagectomy was performed in 397 patients, with 288 undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Margin status (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.15-2.83; P Conclusions: Textbook lymphadenectomy is associated with improved survival. Low lymph node yield and a high LNR are associated with reduced overall survival. A LNR of <0.05 is associated with significant survival benefit. A minimum nodal yield of 15 should remain the standard of care.</p

Nodal yield <15 is associated with reduced survival in esophagectomy and is a quality metric

Background: Surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy remains the cornerstone of curative management of esophageal adenocarcinoma and is frequently used for squamous cell carcinoma. The optimal extent of lymphadenectomy and whether increasing lymph node yields confer a survival benefit remains unclear. Guidelines suggest resecting and examining a minimum of 15 lymph nodes at esophagectomy. This study assessed the impact of lymph node yield and lymph node ratio (LNR) on survival, identifying factors influencing nodal yield and radicality of resection. Methods: All patients undergoing esophagectomy with curative intent at a single institution (stage 1-4 inclusive) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, were reviewed. Clinical and pathologic variables were interrogated. LNR was calculated by dividing positive lymph nodes by the total nodes resected. Results: Esophagectomy was performed in 397 patients, with 288 undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Margin status (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.15-2.83; P Conclusions: Textbook lymphadenectomy is associated with improved survival. Low lymph node yield and a high LNR are associated with reduced overall survival. A LNR of <0.05 is associated with significant survival benefit. A minimum nodal yield of 15 should remain the standard of care.</p

Patient-derived organoids for prediction of treatment response in oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Oesophageal cancer, comprising adenocarcinoma (OAC) and squamous cell carcinoma subtypes, accounts for approximately 450 000 deaths annually worldwide1,2. For locally advanced OAC, the current standard of care is neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS) or perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT)3,4. Although both confer a survival benefit, 40% of patients undergoing FLOT and 25% of patients undergoing CROSS demonstrate minimal pathological response, suggesting alternative regimens could be more effective2–4. The superiority of either regimen is not clear, with a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrating clinical equipoise between perioperative chemotherapy and CROSS5. </p

Patient-derived organoids for prediction of treatment response in oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Oesophageal cancer, comprising adenocarcinoma (OAC) and squamous cell carcinoma subtypes, accounts for approximately 450 000 deaths annually worldwide1,2. For locally advanced OAC, the current standard of care is neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS) or perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT)3,4. Although both confer a survival benefit, 40% of patients undergoing FLOT and 25% of patients undergoing CROSS demonstrate minimal pathological response, suggesting alternative regimens could be more effective2–4. The superiority of either regimen is not clear, with a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrating clinical equipoise between perioperative chemotherapy and CROSS5. </p

Global Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With Postoperative Urinary Retention Following Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair: The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) Study

IMPORTANCE: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a well-recognized complication of inguinal hernia repair (IHR). A variable incidence of POUR has previously been reported in this context, and contradictory evidence surrounds potential risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the incidence of, explore risk factors for, and determine the health service outcomes of POUR following elective IHR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) study, an international, prospective cohort study, recruited participants between March 1 and October 31, 2021. This study was conducted across 209 centers in 32 countries in a consecutive sample of adult patients undergoing elective IHR. EXPOSURE: Open or minimally invasive IHR by any surgical technique, under local, neuraxial regional, or general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of POUR following elective IHR. Secondary outcomes were perioperative risk factors, management, clinical consequences, and health service outcomes of POUR. A preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score was measured in male patients. RESULTS: In total, 4151 patients (3882 male and 269 female; median [IQR] age, 56 [43-68] years) were studied. Inguinal hernia repair was commenced via an open surgical approach in 82.2% of patients (n = 3414) and minimally invasive surgery in 17.8% (n = 737). The primary form of anesthesia was general in 40.9% of patients (n = 1696), neuraxial regional in 45.8% (n = 1902), and local in 10.7% (n = 446). Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 5.8% of male patients (n = 224), 2.97% of female patients (n = 8), and 9.5% (119 of 1252) of male patients aged 65 years or older. Risk factors for POUR after adjusted analyses included increasing age, anticholinergic medication, history of urinary retention, constipation, out-of-hours surgery, involvement of urinary bladder within the hernia, temporary intraoperative urethral catheterization, and increasing operative duration. Postoperative urinary retention was the primary reason for 27.8% of unplanned day-case surgery admissions (n = 74) and 51.8% of 30-day readmissions (n = 72). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this cohort study suggest that 1 in 17 male patients, 1 in 11 male patients aged 65 years or older, and 1 in 34 female patients may develop POUR following IHR. These findings could inform preoperative patient counseling. In addition, awareness of modifiable risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk of POUR who may benefit from perioperative risk mitigation strategies.Published versionRD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted