16 research outputs found

    Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

    Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

    Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

    Photon iso-effective dose for cancer treatment with mixed field radiation based on dose-response assessment from human and an animal model: Clinical application to boron neutron capture therapy for head and neck cancer

    No full text
    Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is a treatment modality that combines different radiation qualities. Since the severity of biological damage following irradiation depends on the radiation type, a quantity different from absorbed dose is required to explain the effects observed in the clinical BNCT in terms of outcome compared with conventional photon radiation therapy. A new approach for calculating photon iso-effective doses in BNCT was introduced previously. The present work extends this model to include information from dose-response assessments in animal models and humans. Parameters of the model were determined for tumour and precancerous tissue using dose-response curves obtained from BNCT and photon studies performed in the hamster cheek pouch in vivo models of oral cancer and/or pre-cancer, and from head and neck cancer radiotherapy data with photons. To this end, suitable expressions of the dose-limiting Normal Tissue Complication and Tumour Control Probabilities for the reference radiation and for the mixed field BNCT radiation were developed. Pearson's correlation coefficients and p-values showed that TCP and NTCP models agreed with experimental data (with r > 0.87 and p-values >0.57). The photon iso-effective dose model was applied retrospectively to evaluate the dosimetry in tumours and mucosa for head and neck cancer patients treated with BNCT in Finland. Photon iso-effective doses in tumour were lower than those obtained with the standard RBE-weighted model (between 10% to 45%). The results also suggested that the probabilities of tumour control derived from photon iso-effective doses are more adequate to explain the clinical responses than those obtained with the RBE-weighted values. The dosimetry in the mucosa revealed that the photon iso-effective doses were about 30% to 50% higher than the corresponding RBE-weighted values. While the RBE-weighted doses are unable to predict mucosa toxicity, predictions based on the proposed model are compatible with the observed clinical outcome. The extension of the photon iso-effective dose model has allowed, for the first time, the determination of the photon iso-effective dose for unacceptable complications in the dose-limiting normal tissue. Finally, the formalism developed in this work to compute photon-equivalent doses can be applied to other therapies that combine mixed radiation fields, such as hadron therapy.Fil: González, S. J.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Pozzi, Emiliano César Cayetano. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Monti Hughes, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Provenzano, Lucas. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Koivunoro, H.. Neutron Therapeutics; Finlandia. Helsinki University Hospital; FinlandiaFil: Carando, Daniel Germán. Universidad de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Thorp, Silvia Inés. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Casal, M. R.. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Bortolussi, Silva. Universita Degli Studi Di Pavia;Fil: Trivillin, Verónica Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Garabalino, Marcela Alejandra. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Curotto, Paula. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Heber, Elisa Mercedes. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Santa Cruz, Gustavo Alberto. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; ArgentinaFil: Kankaanranta, L.. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Joensuu, H.. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Schwint, Amanda Elena. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Constituyentes; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

    El tiempo de la archivística: un estudio de sus espacios de racionalidad histórica

    No full text

    Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19–positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Lay Summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment

    The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery

    BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19

    No full text
    Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues experiences and published evidence. Methods: In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them. Results: BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era

    BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence
    corecore