12 research outputs found
Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy
IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical
attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced
colorectal cancers at diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced
oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all
17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December
31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period),
in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was
30 days from surgery.
EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery,
palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer
at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as
cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding,
lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery,
and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes
was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster
variable.
RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years)
underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142
(56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was
significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR],
1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic
lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients
undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for
these patients
Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews: A method for conducting comprehensive analysis
A systematic review (SR) is a research method for synthesizing evidence on a specific topic. Among the various types of systematic reviews, there are SRs of guidelines (CPGs) and SRs of SRs. Traditionally, they are limited to just one type of secondary evidence. This paper introduces an innovative SR methodology that combines CPGs and SRs to improve evidence synthesis and overcome the limitations of isolated use.Essential steps that should always precede the actual research process include registering the research protocol, formulating research questions and setting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Using the PRISMA protocol for comprehensive database searches, it's crucial to combine keywords with boolean operators and remove duplicates. The eligibility of studies should be assessed by selecting potentially relevant articles through an initial screening of titles and abstracts, followed by a meticulous analysis of the full-texts. Rigorous evidence evaluation tools, such as AGREE II for CPGs and AMSTAR 2 for SRs, and the double reviewer approach ensure high-quality selections. Additionally, converting summarized results into percentages and applying statistical analyses facilitate interpretation and improve the reliability of rater assessments. A further characteristic of this methodology is its adaptability to the evolution of healthcare research
Primary care pediatricians’ attitudes and practice towards HPV vaccination: A nationwide survey in Italy
A prospective cohort analysis of the prevalence and predictive factors of delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Italy: the DeDiLaCo Study
Background: The concept of early discharge ≤24 hours after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is still doubted in Italy. This prospective multicentre study aims to analyze the prevalence of patients undergoing elective LC who experienced a delayed discharge >24 hours in an extensive Italian national database and identify potential limiting factors of early discharge after LC.
Methods: This is a prospective observational multicentre study performed from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 by 90 Italian surgical units.
Results: A total of 4664 patients were included in the study. Clinical reasons were found only for 850 patients (37.7%) discharged >24 hours after LC. After excluding patients with nonclinical reasons for delayed discharge >24 hours, 2 groups based on the length of hospitalization were created: the Early group (≤24 h; 2414 patients, 73.9%) and the Delayed group (>24 h; 850 patients, 26.1%). At the multivariate analysis, ASA III class ( P <0.0001), Charlson's Comorbidity Index (P=0.001), history of choledocholithiasis (P=0.03), presence of peritoneal adhesions (P<0.0001), operative time >60 min (P<0.0001), drain placement (P<0.0001), pain ( P =0.001), postoperative vomiting (P=0.001) and complications (P<0.0001) were independent predictors of delayed discharge >24 hours.
Conclusions: The majority of delayed discharges >24 hours after LC in our study were unrelated to the surgery itself. ASA class >II, advanced comorbidity, the presence of peritoneal adhesions, prolonged operative time, and placement of abdominal drainage were intraoperative variables independently associated with failure of early discharge
Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study
BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic