Stage-based treatment for thymoma in due consideration of thymectomy: a single-center experience and comparison with the literature

BACKGROUND: Thymomas represent an uncommon and heterogeneous group of intrathoracic malignancies which require different treatments corresponding to their individual tumor stage. The objective of this study was to review the efficacy of our applied stage-based treatment for thymoma in due consideration of thymectomy. METHODS: This is a single-center, institutional review board-approved retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients with thymoma treated at our division within 10 years. RESULTS: There were 29 women (58 %) and 21 men (42 %), mean age 58.3 years. Twenty nine (58 %) had clinical symptoms and 14 (28 %) had myasthenia gravis. Forty-five patients (90 %) underwent thymectomy and complete resection was done in 42 cases (93.3 %). Histologic results were 6 subtype A, 5 AB, 8 B1, 12 B2, 12 B3, and 7 C. The Masaoka staging system revealed 20 stage I, 18 stage II, 6 stage III, and 6 stage IV. Two patients had neoadjuvant therapy and 25 received postoperative treatment. Five (11.1 %) had tumor recurrence, treated with re-resection. The 5-year disease-free survival was 91.5 %. Two patients died of tumor progression and three died of other causes (10 %). The 5-year overall survival was 82.3 % and the median survival time was 92.1 months. The 5-year survival rate after thymectomy was 87.2 % and the median survival was 92.1 months. CONCLUSIONS: Complete resection still remains the mainstay in the treatment of non-metastatic thymoma and should be performed whenever feasible. Close multidisciplinary teamwork is mandatory to optimize the neurologic outcome and to prolong postoperative survival

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

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

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

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

Surgery for metachronous metastasis of soft tissue sarcoma - A magnitude of benefit analysis using propensity score methods

Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc