The immediate impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on burn-out, work-engagement, and surgical training in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to major changes in health care and education options for all health care employees. The aim of this study is to achieve insight into coronavirus disease-care participation of surgical residents in the Netherlands, the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on the experienced quality of surgical training, and the influence on Burn-out and Work Engagement compared with the non-coronavirus disease 2019 period in January 2020.METHODS: In this study, we have conducted 2 digital surveys immediately before and 2 months after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We surveyed a validated Dutch questionnaire 'Utrecht Burn-out Scale,' derived from the Maslach Burn-out Inventory, and also collected the 'Utrecht Work Engagement Scale' measuring work engagement. Additionally, we describe the coronavirus disease-care participation of surgical residents, the impact on how they experienced the quality of their surgical training, and the influence on 'Burn-out and Work Engagement' compared with the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period for surgical residents in the Netherlands.RESULTS: In January 2020, a total of 317 residents completed the online survey, and in April 2020, a total of 313 residents completed the online survey. Of the responders, 48.6%, in April, participated in coronavirus disease-care in both the coronavirus disease ward as well as the coronavirus disease intensive care unit. Residents experienced that the coronavirus disease 2019 influenced their surgical training in 85.2% of responders. In only 5% of the residents did the pandemic not affect the exposure to surgical training in the operating theater. More burn-out symptoms were noted amongst coronavirus disease ward deployed residents versus no coronavirus disease ward deployment, (16.0% vs 7.6%, P = .06). The Work-Engagement questionnaire showed a significantly lower work engagement score of 4.2 for residents who were deployed in a coronavirus disease-care intensive care unit versus a score of 4.6 for residents scheduled in a coronavirus disease ward (P = .02).CONCLUSION: This study shows a significant impact of the first months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the Dutch surgical trainee program, with a major redistribution of residents with a decrease of surgical exposure and education. We emphasize the need for adequate guidance of all surgical residents and potentially lengthening the surgical training program.</p

The immediate impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on burn-out, work-engagement, and surgical training in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 237065.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

Locoregionally Recurrent Colon Cancer: How Far Have We Come? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: The reported outcomes of locoregionally recurrent colon cancer (LRCC) are poor, but the literature about LRCC is scarce and aged. Recent population-based studies to provide current insight into LRCC are warranted. This study aimed to provide an overview of the incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of patients with LRCC after curative resection of stage I–III primary colon cancer. Methods: Data on disease recurrence were collected for all patients with a diagnosis of non-metastasized primary colon cancer in the Netherlands during the first 6 months of 2015. Patients who underwent surgical resection (N = 3544) were included in this study. The 3-year cumulative incidence, risk factors, treatment, and OS for patients with LRCC were determined. Results: The 3-year cumulative incidence of LRCC was 3.8%. Synchronous distant metastases (LRCC-M1) were diagnosed in 62.7% of the patients. The risk factors for LRCC were age of 70 years or older, pT4, pN1-2, and R1-2. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of LRCC for high-risk stage II and stage III patients [hazard ratio (HR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.93]. The median OS for the patients with LRCC was 13.1 months (95% CI 9.1–18.3 months). Curative-intent treatment was given to 22.4% of the LRCC patients, and the subsequent 3 years OS was 71% (95% CI 58–87%). The patients treated with palliative treatment and best supportive care showed 3-year OS rates of 15% (95% CI 7.0–31%) and 3.7% (95% CI 1.0–14%), respectively. Conclusions: The cumulative incidence of LRCC was low, and adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk for LRCC among targeted patients. Curative-intent treatment was given to nearly 1 in 4 LRCC patients, and the OS for this group was high

Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Toward a Second Chance at Cure? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: In current practice, rates of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are low due to the use of the total mesorectal excision (TME) in combination with various neoadjuvant treatment strategies. However, the literature on LRRC mainly consists of single- and multicenter retrospective cohort studies, which are prone to selection bias. The aim of this study is to provide a nationwide, population-based overview of LRRC after TME in the Netherlands. Patients and Methods: In total, 1431 patients with nonmetastasized primary rectal cancer diagnosed in the first six months of 2015 and treated with TME were included from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on disease recurrence were collected for patients diagnosed in these 6 months only. Competing risk cumulative incidence, competing risk regression, and Kaplan–Meier analyses were performed to assess incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of LRRC. Results: Three-year cumulative incidence of LRRC was 6.4%; synchronous distant metastases (LRRC-M1) were present in 44.9% of patients with LRRC. Distal localization, R1–2 margin, (y)pT3-4, and (y)pN1-2 were associated with an increased LRRC rate. No differences in LRRC treatment and OS were found between patients who had been treated with or without prior n(C)RT. Curative-intent treatment was given to 42.9% of patients with LRRC, and 3-year OS thereafter was 70%. Conclusions: Nationwide LRRC incidence was low. A high proportion of patients with LRRC underwent curative-intent treatment, and OS of this group was high in comparison with previous studies. Additionally, n(C)RT for primary rectal cancer was not associated with differences in treatment and OS of LRRC

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study (vol 46, pg 2021, 2022)

N/

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study

Background: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. Methods: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. Results: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19\ub78 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6\ub76 and 2\ub74 per cent respectively before, but 23\ub77 and 5\ub73 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0\ub7001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. Conclusion: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2