Quality Assessment of Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Patient Information on the Internet Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients Tool.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the quality of patient information material regarding elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair on the internet using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (MEQIP) tool. METHODS: A qualitative assessment of internet based patient information was performed. The 12 most used search terms relating to AAA repair were identified using Google Trends, with the first 10 pages of websites retrieved for each term searched. Duplicates were removed, and information for patients undergoing elective AAA were selected. Further exclusion criteria were marketing material, academic journals, videos, and non-English language sites. The remaining websites were then MEQIP scored independently by two reviewers, producing a final score by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 1 297 websites were identified, with 235 (18.1%) eligible for analysis. The median MEQIP score was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] 14, 21) out of a possible 36. The highest score was 33. The 99th percentile MEQIP scoring websites scored > 27, with four of these six sites representing online copies of hospital patient information leaflets, however hospital sites overall had lower median MEQIP scores than most other institution types. MEQIP subdomain median scores were: content, 8 (IQR 6, 11); identification, 3 (IQR 1, 3); and structure, 7 (IQR 6, 9). Of the analysed websites, 77.9% originated from the USA (median score 17) and 12.8% originated in the UK (median score 22). Search engine ranking was related to website institution type but had no correlation with MEQIP. CONCLUSION: When assessed by the MEQIP tool, most websites regarding elective AAA repair are of questionable quality. This is in keeping with studies in other surgical and medical fields. Search engine ranking is not a reliable measure of quality of patient information material regarding elective AAA repair. Health practitioners should be aware of this issue as well as the whereabouts of high quality material to which patients can be directed.

Implementation of a software-based decision support tool for guideline-appropriate preoperative evaluation: a prospective agreement study.

BACKGROUND: Guideline adherence in the medical field leaves room for improvement. Digitalised decision support helps improve compliance. However, the complex nature of the guidelines makes implementation in clinical practice difficult. METHODS: This single-centre prospective study included 204 adult ASA physical status 3-4 patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at a German university hospital. Agreement of clearance for surgery between a guideline expert and a digital guideline support tool was investigated. The decision made by the on-duty anaesthetists (standard approach) was assessed for agreement with the expert in a cross-over design. The main outcome was the level of agreement between digital guideline support and the expert. RESULTS: The digital guideline support approach cleared 18.1% of the patients for surgery, the standard approach cleared 74.0%, and the expert approach cleared 47.5%. Agreement of the expert decision with digital guideline support (66.7%) and the standard approach (67.6%) was fair (Cohen's kappa 0.37 [interquartile range 0.26-0.48] vs 0.31 [0.21-0.42], P=0.6). Taking the expert decision as a benchmark, correct clearance using digital guideline support was 50.5%, and correct clearance using the standard approach was 44.6%. Digital guideline support incorrectly asked for additional examinations in 31.4% of the patients, whereas the standard approach did not consider conditions that would have justified additional examinations before surgery in 29.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Strict guideline adherence for clearance for surgery through digitalised decision support inadequately considered patients, clinical context. Vague formulations, weak recommendations, and low-quality evidence complicate guideline translation into explicit rules. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04058769.

Long-term implications of elective evar that is non-compliant with clinical practice guideline diameter thresholds.

OBJECTIVE: Compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) clinical practice guideline (CPG)-diameter thresholds is variable for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). To evaluate the implications and appropriateness of repairs that are noncompliant with current guidelines, we investigated the long-term outcomes, adherence to imaging follow-up, and associated health care costs in patients undergoing EVAR for AAA who do or do not meet recommended diameter thresholds. METHODS: All patients receiving elective EVAR from 2003 to 2016 in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative with linked Medicare claims were reviewed. Weekend procedures and isolated iliac aneurysms, as well as symptomatic and ruptured presentations, were excluded. Diameter thresholds for noncompliant repairs were defined as: men <55 mm; women <50 mm who did not have an iliac diameter ≥30 mm. We evaluated adherence to postoperative imaging surveillance, reimbursement amounts, reintervention, rupture, and all-cause mortality. We defined an EVAR quality metric as performance of the index procedure with freedom from conversion to open repair, 5-year rupture-free survival, and adherence to minimum imaging surveillance (at least one computed tomography scan documented between 6 and 24 months postoperatively). RESULTS: Among 19,018 elective EVARs, 35% did not meet CPG diameter thresholds (26% within 5 mm of threshold). The rate of noncompliant repairs increased over time (24% in 2003 vs 36% in 2016; P < .001). Patients undergoing noncompliant repairs were younger, less likely to have multiple comorbidities, and more likely to receive EVAR with adherence to instructions for use criteria (89% vs 79%; P < .001). Patients undergoing noncompliant repairs had greater 5-year freedom from reintervention (86% vs 81%; P < .001), rupture-free survival (94% vs 92%; P = .01), and overall survival rates (71% vs 61%; P < .001) compared with repairs that complied with CPG diameter thresholds. Although noncompliant repairs had higher rates of 1-year imaging surveillance, overall differences were modest (68% vs 65%; P = .003). Importantly, for the entire cohort, follow-up imaging surveillance decreased over time (93% in 2003 vs 63% in 2014; P < .001). Notably, although noncompliant repairs had higher rates of achieving the composite quality metric compared with compliant repairs (43% vs 38%; P < .001), failure occurred with a significant majority of all repairs. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with SVS-endorsed CPG diameter thresholds for elective EVAR is poor, and rates of noncompliance are increasing. Noncompliant repairs appear to be offered more commonly to patients with fewer comorbidities and favorable anatomy, and these repairs are associated with improved rates of reintervention, rupture, and survival compared with procedures meeting CPG diameter thresholds. Importantly, noncompliant repairs fail to meet minimum quality standards in a majority of cases, which underscores the need for further policies to improve the overall quality and appropriateness of AAA care delivery nationally.

Non-guideline-compliant endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in women is associated with increased mortality and reintervention compared with men.

OBJECTIVE: Sex-based disparities in surgical outcomes have emerged as an important focus in contemporary healthcare delivery. Likewise, the appropriate usage of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the United States remains a subject of ongoing controversy, with a significant number of U.S. EVARs failing to adhere to the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) clinical practice guideline (CPG) diameter thresholds. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of sex among patients undergoing EVAR that was not compliant with the SVS CPGs. METHODS: All elective EVAR procedures for abdominal aortic aneurysms without a concomitant iliac aneurysm (≥3.0 cm) in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed (2015-2019; n = 25,112). SVS CPG noncompliant repairs were defined as a size of <5.5 cm for men and <5.0 cm for women. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. The secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, complications, and reintervention. Logistic regression was performed to control for surgeon- and patient-level factors. Freedom from the endpoints was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Noncompliant EVAR was performed in 9675 patients (38.5%). Although men were significantly more likely to undergo such procedures (90% vs 10%; odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-3.4; P < .0001), the 30-day mortality was greater for the women than the men (1.8% vs 0.5%; P = .0003). Women also experienced significantly higher rates of multiple complications, including postoperative myocardial infarction (1% vs 0.3%; P = .006), respiratory failure (1.4% vs 0.6%; P = .01), intestinal ischemia (0.7% vs 0.2%; P = .003), access vessel hematoma (3% vs 1.2%; P = .0006), and iliac access vessel injury (2.4% vs 0.8%; P < .0001). Additionally, women experienced increased overall 1-year reintervention rates (11.5% vs 5.8%; P < .0001). In the adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality and any in-hospital complication risk remained significantly greater for the women (30-day death: OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.6-5.8; P = .0005; in-hospital complication: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; P < .0001). Women also experienced increased reintervention rates over time compared with men (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Although men were more likely to undergo non-CPG compliant EVAR, women experienced increased short-term morbidity and 30-day mortality and higher rates of reintervention when undergoing non-CPG compliant EVAR. These unanticipated findings necessitate increased scrutiny of current U.S. sex-based EVAR practice and should caution against the use of non-CPG compliant EVAR for women.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS). BACKGROUND: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. METHODS: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years. RESULTS: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ±â€Š10 years, 8.4 ±â€Š5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ±â€Š7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. CONCLUSION: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

System Factors Affecting Patient Safety in the OR: An Analysis of Safety Threats and Resiliency.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the characteristics and frequency of intraoperative safety threats and resilience supports using a human factors measurement tool. BACKGROUND: Human factors analysis can provide insight into how system elements contribute to intraoperative adverse events. Empiric evidence on safety threats and resilience in surgical practice is lacking. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 24 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic general surgery at a single center in the Netherlands from May to November, 2017 was conducted. Video, audio, and patient physiologic data from all included procedures were obtained through a multichannel synchronized recording device. Trained analysts reviewed the recordings and coded safety threats and resilience supports. The codes were categorized into 1 of 6 categories (person, task, tools and technology, physical environment, organization, and external environment). RESULTS: A median of 14 safety threats [interquartile range (IQR) 11-16] and 12 resilience supports (IQR 11-16) were identified per case. Most safety threat codes (median 9, IQR 7-12) and resilience support codes (median 10, IQR 7-12) were classified in the person category. The organization category contained a median of 2 (IQR 1-2) safety threat codes and 2 (IQR 2-3) resilience support codes per case. The tools and technology category contributed a small number of safety threats (median 1 per case, IQR 0-1), but rarely provided resilience support. CONCLUSIONS: Through a detailed human factors analysis of elective laparoscopic general surgery cases, this study provided a quantitative analysis of the existing safety threats and resilience supports in a modern endoscopic operating room.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

A Critical Appraisal of the American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures (MeNTS) Scoring System, Urology Consensus Recommendations and Individual Surgeon Case Prioritization for Resumption of Elective Urological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores. RESULTS: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.

Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Thoracic aortic diseases, including disease of the descending thoracic aorta (DTA), are significant causes of death in the United States. Open repair of the DTA is a physiologically impactful operation with relatively high rates of mortality, paraplegia, and renal failure. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has revolutionized treatment of the DTA and has largely supplanted open repair because of lower morbidity and mortality. These Society for Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines are applicable to the use of TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) as well as for other rarer pathologic processes of the DTA. Management of aortic dissections and traumatic injuries will be discussed in separate Society for Vascular Surgery documents. In general, there is a lack of high-quality evidence across all TAA diseases, highlighting the need for better comparative effectiveness research. Yet, large single-center experiences, administrative databases, and meta-analyses have consistently reported beneficial effects of TEVAR over open repair, especially in the setting of rupture. Many of the strongest recommendations from this guideline focus on imaging before, during, or after TEVAR and include the following: In patients considered at high risk for symptomatic TAA or acute aortic syndrome, we recommend urgent imaging, usually computed tomography angiography (CTA) because of its speed and ease of use for preoperative planning. Level of recommendation: Grade 1 (Strong), Quality of Evidence: B (Moderate). If TEVAR is being considered, we recommend fine-cut (≤0.25 mm) CTA of the entire aorta as well as of the iliac and femoral arteries. CTA of the head and neck is also needed to determine the anatomy of the vertebral arteries. Level of recommendation: Grade 1 (Strong), Quality of Evidence: A (High). We recommend routine use of three-dimensional centerline reconstruction software for accurate case planning and execution in TEVAR. Level of recommendation: Grade 1 (Strong), Quality of Evidence: B (Moderate). We recommend contrast-enhanced computed tomography scanning at 1 month and 12 months after TEVAR and then yearly for life, with consideration of more frequent imaging if an endoleak or other abnormality of concern is detected at 1 month. Level of recommendation: Grade 1 (Strong), Quality of Evidence: B (Moderate). Finally, based on our review, in patients who could undergo either technique (within the criteria of the device's instructions for use), we recommend TEVAR as the preferred approach to treat elective DTA aneurysms, given its reduced morbidity and length of stay as well as short-term mortality. Level of recommendation: Grade 1 (Strong), Quality of Evidence: A (High). Given the benefits of TEVAR, treatment using a minimally invasive approach is largely based on anatomic eligibility rather than on patient-specific factors, as is the case in open TAA repair. Thus, for isolated lesions of the DTA, TEVAR should be the primary method of repair in both the elective and emergent setting based on improved short-term and midterm mortality as well as decreased morbidity.

Early vascular surgery response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a nationwide survey.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major implications for the United States health care system. This survey study sought to identify practice changes, to understand current personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and to determine how caring for patients with COVID-19 differs for vascular surgeons practicing in states with high COVID-19 case numbers vs in states with low case numbers. METHODS: A 14-question online survey regarding the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular surgeons' current practice was sent to 365 vascular surgeons across the country through REDCap from April 14 to April 21, 2020, with responses closed on April 23, 2020. The survey response was analyzed with descriptive statistics. Further analyses were performed to evaluate whether responses from states with the highest number of COVID-19 cases (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and California) differed from those with lower case numbers (all other states). RESULTS: A total of 121 vascular surgeons responded (30.6%) to the survey. All high-volume states were represented. The majority of vascular surgeons are reusing PPE. The majority of respondents worked in an academic setting (81.5%) and were performing only urgent and emergent cases (80.5%) during preparation for the surge. This did not differ between states with high and low COVID-19 case volumes (P = .285). States with high case volume were less likely to perform a lower extremity intervention for critical limb ischemia (60.8% vs 77.5%; P = .046), but otherwise case types did not differ. Most attending vascular surgeons worked with residents (90.8%) and limited their exposure to procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases (56.0%). Thirty-eight percent of attending vascular surgeons have been redeployed within the hospital to a vascular access service or other service outside of vascular surgery. This was more frequent in states with high case volume compared with low case volume (P = .039). The majority of vascular surgeons are reusing PPE (71.4%) and N95 masks (86.4%), and 21% of vascular surgeons think that they do not have adequate PPE to perform their clinical duties. CONCLUSIONS: The initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in reduced elective cases, with primarily only urgent and emergent cases being performed. A minority of vascular surgeons have been redeployed outside of their specialty; however, this is more common among states with high case numbers. Adequate PPE remains an issue for almost a quarter of vascular surgeons who responded to this survey.

Elective Surgical Delays Due to COVID-19: The Patient Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative research explored the lived experiences of patients who experienced postponement of elective cardiac and vascular surgery due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We know very little about patients during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Understanding the patient voice may play an important role in prioritization of postponed cases and triage moving forward. METHODS: Utilizing a hermeneutical phenomenological qualitative design, we interviewed 47 individuals who experienced a postponement of cardiac or vascular surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed and informed by phenomenological research methods. RESULTS: Patients in our study described 3 key issues around their postponement of elective surgery. Patients described robust narratives about the meanings of their elective surgeries as the chance to "return to normal" and alleviate symptoms that impacted everyday life. Second, because of the meanings most of our patients ascribed to their surgeries, postponement often took a toll on how patients managed physical health and emotional well-being. Finally, paradoxically, many patients in our study were demonstrative that they would "rather die from a heart attack" than be exposed to the coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several components of the patient experience, encompassing quality of life and other desired benefits of surgery, the risks of COVID, and difficulty reconciling the 2. Our study provides significant qualitative evidence to inform providers of important considerations when rescheduling the backlog of patients. The emotional and psychological distress that patients experienced due to postponement may also require additional considerations in postoperative recovery.

Establishing Clinically Significant Patient-reported Outcomes for Diverticular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular disease can undermine health-related quality of life. The diverticulitis quality of life (DV-QOL) instrument was designed and validated to measure patient-reported burden of diverticular disease. However, values reflecting meaningful improvement (i.e., minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) have yet to be established. We sought to establish the MCID and PASS of the DV-QOL and describe the characteristics of those with DV-QOL above the PASS threshold. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of adults with diverticular disease from seven centers in Washington and California (2016-2018). Patients were surveyed at baseline, then quarterly up to 30 mo. To determine the MCID and PASS for DV-QOL, we applied various previously established distribution- and anchor-based approaches and compared the resulting values. RESULTS: The study included 177 patients (mean age 57 y, 43% women). A PASS threshold of 3.2/10 distinguished between those with and without health-related quality of life-impacting diverticulitis with acceptable accuracy (area under the curve 0.76). A change of 2.2 points in the DV-QOL was the most appropriate MCID: above the distribution-based MCIDs and corresponding to patient perception of importance of change (AUC 0.70). Patients with DV-QOL ≥ PASS were more often men, younger, had Medicaid, had more serious episodes of diverticulitis, and had an occupational degree or high-school education or less. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to define MCID and PASS for DV-QOL. These thresholds are critical for measuring the impact of diverticular disease and the evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

COVID-19 Impact on Surgical Resident Education and Coping.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and surgical residency training programs have been significantly affected by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A shelter-in-place and social distancing mandate went into effect in our county on March 16, 2020, considerably altering clinical and educational operations. Along with the suspension of elective procedures, resident academic curricula transitioned to an entirely virtual platform. We aimed to evaluate the impact of these modifications on surgical training and resident concerns about COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed residents and fellows from all eight surgical specialties at our institution regarding their COVID-19 experiences from March to May 2020. Residents completed the survey via a secure Qualtrics link. A total of 38 questions addressed demographic information and perspectives regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical training, education, and general coping during the pandemic. RESULTS: Of 256 eligible participants across surgical specialties, 146 completed the survey (57.0%). Junior residents comprised 43.6% (n = 61), compared to seniors 37.1% (n = 52) and fellows 19.3% (n = 27). Most participants, 97.9% (n = 138), anticipated being able to complete their academic year on time, and 75.2% (n = 100) perceived virtual learning to be the same as or better than in-person didactic sessions. Participants were most concerned about their ability to have sufficient knowledge and skills to care for patients with COVID-19, and the possibility of exposure to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Although COVID-19 impacted residents' overall teaching and clinical volume, residency programs may identify novel virtual opportunities to meet their educational and research milestones during these challenging times.

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. CONCLUSION: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.

A Protocol is not Enough: Enhanced Recovery Program-Based Care and Clinician Adherence Associated with Shorter Stay After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have shown an Enhanced Recovery Program (ERP) can shorten stay after colorectal surgery. Previous research has focused on patient compliance neglecting the role of care providers. National data on implementation and adherence to standardised care are lacking. We examined care organisation and delivery including the ERP, and correlated this with clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to surgeons and nurses in August-October 2015. All English National Health Service Trusts providing elective colorectal surgery were invited. Responses frequencies and variation were examined. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify underlying features of care. Standardised factor scores were correlated with elective clinical outcomes of length of stay, mortality and readmission rates from 2013-15. RESULTS: 218/600 (36.3%) postal responses were received from 84/90 (93.3%) Trusts that agreed to participate. Combined with email responses, 301 surveys were analysed. 281/301 (93.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that they had a standardised, ERP-based care protocol. However, 182/301 (60.5%) indicated all consultants managed post-operative oral intake similarly. After factor analysis, higher hospital average ERP-based care standardisation and clinician adherence score were significantly correlated with reduced length of stay, as well as higher ratings of teamwork and support for complication management. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised, ERP-based care was near universal, but clinician adherence varied markedly. Units reporting higher levels of clinician adherence achieved the lowest length of stay. Having a protocol is not enough. Careful implementation and adherence by all of the team is vital to achieve the best results.

Pro-Con Debate: 1- vs 2-Hour Fast for Clear Liquids Before Anesthesia in Children.

Perioperative fasting guidelines are designed to minimize the risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastrointestinal contents. The current recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) are for a minimum 2-hour fast after ingestion of clear liquids before general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, or procedural sedation and analgesia. Nonetheless, in children, fasting guidelines also have consequences as regards to child and parent satisfaction, hemodynamic stability, the ability to achieve vascular access, and perioperative energy balance. Despite the fact that current guidelines recommend a relatively short fasting time for clear fluids of 2 hours, the actual duration of fasting time can be significantly longer. This may be the result of deficiencies in communication regarding the duration of the ongoing fasting interval as the schedule changes in a busy operating room as well as to poor parent and patient adherence to the 2-hour guidelines. Prolonged fasting can result in children arriving in the operating room for an elective procedure being thirsty, hungry, and generally in an uncomfortable state. Furthermore, prolonged fasting may adversely affect hemodynamic stability and can result in parental dissatisfaction with the perioperative experience. In this PRO and CON presentation, the authors debate the premise that reducing the nominal minimum fasting time from 2 hours to 1 hour can reduce the incidence of prolonged fasting and provide significant benefits to children, with no increased risks.

A Risk-Based Screening Approach to Patients Needing Surgery During the De-Escalation Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, many national and international surgical societies have produced guidelines regarding the management of surgical patients. During the mitigation phase of the pandemic, most documents suggested to consider postponing elective procedures, unless this might have impacted the life expectancy of patients. As awareness and knowledge about COVID-19 are gradually increasing, and as we enter a phase when surgical services are resuming their activities, surgical strategies have to adapt to this rapidly evolving scenario. This is particularly relevant when considering screening policies and the associated findings. We herein describe a risk-based approach to the management of patients with surgical diseases, which might be useful in order to limit the risks for healthcare workers and patients, while allowing for resuming elective surgical practice safely.

Evaluation and treatment of thoracic outlet syndrome during the global pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

The global SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic has required a reduction in nonemergency treatment for a variety of disorders. This report summarizes conclusions of an international multidisciplinary consensus group assembled to address evaluation and treatment of patients with thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS), a group of conditions characterized by extrinsic compression of the neurovascular structures serving the upper extremity. The following recommendations were developed in relation to the three defined types of TOS (neurogenic, venous, and arterial) and three phases of pandemic response (preparatory, urgent with limited resources, and emergency with complete diversion of resources). • In-person evaluation and treatment for neurogenic TOS (interventional or surgical) are generally postponed during all pandemic phases, with telephone/telemedicine visits and at-home physical therapy exercises recommended when feasible. • Venous TOS presenting with acute upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (Paget-Schroetter syndrome) is managed primarily with anticoagulation, with percutaneous interventions for venous TOS (thrombolysis) considered in early phases (I and II) and surgical treatment delayed until pandemic conditions resolve. Catheter-based interventions may also be considered for selected patients with central subclavian vein obstruction and threatened hemodialysis access in all pandemic phases, with definitive surgical treatment postponed. • Evaluation and surgical treatment for arterial TOS should be reserved for limb-threatening situations, such as acute upper extremity ischemia or acute digital embolization, in all phases of pandemic response. In late pandemic phases, surgery should be restricted to thrombolysis or brachial artery thromboembolectomy, with more definitive treatment delayed until pandemic conditions resolve.

Achieving the High-Value Colectomy: Preventing Complications or Improving Efficiency.

BACKGROUND: There is increased focus on the value of surgical care. Postoperative complications decrease value, but it is unknown whether high-value hospitals spend less than low-value hospitals in cases without complications. Previous studies have not evaluated both expenditures and validated outcomes in the same patients, limiting the understanding of interactions between clinical performance, efficient utilization of services, and costliness of surgical episodes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify payment differences between low- and high-value hospitals in colectomy cases without adverse outcomes using a linked data set of multipayer claims and validated clinical outcomes. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. We assigned each hospital a value score (ratio of cases without adverse outcome to mean episode payment). We stratified hospitals into tertiles by value and used analysis of variance tests to compare payments between low- and high-value hospitals, first for all cases, and then cases without adverse outcome. SETTING: January 2012 to December 2016, this investigation used clinical registry data from 56 hospitals participating in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, linked with 30-day episode payments from the Michigan Value Collaborative. PATIENTS: A total of 2947 patients undergoing elective colectomy were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was risk-adjusted, price-standardized 30-day episode payments. RESULTS: The mean adjusted complication rate was 31% (±10.7%) at low-value hospitals and 14% (±4.6%) at high-value hospitals (p < 0.001). Low-value hospitals were paid $3807 (17%) more than high-value hospitals ($22,271 vs $18,464, p < 0.001). Among cases without adverse outcome, payments were still $2257 (11%) higher in low-value hospitals ($19,424 vs $17,167, p = 0.04). LIMITATIONS: This study focused on outcomes and did not consider processes of care as drivers of value. CONCLUSIONS: In elective colectomy, high-value hospitals achieve lower episode payments than low-value hospitals for cases without adverse outcome, indicating mechanisms for increasing value beyond reducing complications. Worthwhile targets to optimize value in elective colectomy may include enhanced recovery protocols or other interventions that increase efficiency in all phases of care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B56. LOGRANDO LA COLECTOMÍA DE ALTO VALOR: PREVINIENDO COMPLICACIONES O MEJORANDO LA EFICIENCIA: Hay un mayor enfoque en el valor de la atención quirúrgica. Las complicaciones postoperatorias disminuyen el valor, pero se desconoce si en los casos sin complicaciones, los hospitales de alto valor gastan menos que los hospitales de bajo valor. Estudios anteriores no han evaluado ambos gastos y validado resultados en los mismos pacientes, limitando la comprensión de las interacciones entre el rendimiento clínico, utilización eficiente de los servicios y costos de los episodios quirúrgicos.Identificar las diferencias de pago entre los hospitales de alto y bajo valor, en casos de colectomía sin resultados adversos, utilizando un conjunto de datos vinculados de reclamos de pago múltiple y resultados clínicos validados.Estudio de cohorte observacional retrospectivo. Asignamos a cada hospital una puntuación de valor (proporción de casos sin resultado adverso al pago medio del episodio). Estratificamos los hospitales por valor en terciles y utilizamos el análisis de pruebas de varianza para comparar los pagos entre hospitales de bajo y alto valor, primero para todos los casos y luego casos sin resultados adversos.De enero del 2012 a diciembre del 2016, utilizando datos de registro clínico de 56 hospitales que participan en el Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, vinculado con pagos de episodios de 30 días, del Michigan Value Collaborative.Un total de 2947 pacientes con colectomía electiva.Pagos por episodio de 30 días, ajustados al riesgo y estandarizados por precio.La tasa media de complicación ajustada fue de 31% (±10.7%) en hospitales de bajo valor y 14% (±4.6%) en hospitales de alto valor (p < 0.001). A los hospitales de bajo valor se les pagó $3807 (17%) más que a los hospitales de alto valor ($22,271 frente a $18,464, p < 0.001). Entre los casos sin resultados adversos, los pagos fueron de $2257 (11%) más altos en hospitales de bajo valor ($19,424 vs $17,167, p = 0.04).Este estudio se centró en los resultados y no se consideraron a los procesos de atención, como impulsores de valor.En la colectomía electiva, los hospitales de alto valor logran pagos de episodios más bajos, que en los hospitales de bajo valor con casos sin resultados adversos, indicando mecanismos para aumentar el valor, más allá que la reducción de complicaciones. Objetivos valiosos para optimizar el valor de la colectomía electiva, pueden incluir mejoras en los protocolos de recuperación, así como otras intervenciones que aumenten la eficiencia en todas las fases de la atención. Vea el resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B56.

Compliance With Preoperative Elements of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist Improves Pathologic and Postoperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published a rectal cancer surgery checklist composed of the essential elements of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care for patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether compliance with preoperative checklist elements was associated with improved pathologic and 30-day postoperative outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study involved North American hospitals contributing to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2016 to 2017 were included. INTERVENTION: The study encompassed checklist compliance with 6 preoperative elements from the checklist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pathologic outcomes (circumferential resection margin status, distal resection margin status, and adequate lymph node harvest ≥12), 30-day surgical morbidity, and length of stay were measured. RESULTS: In total, 2217 patients were included in the analysis. Individual compliance with the 6 available preoperative checklist items was variable, including 91.3% for pretreatment documentation of tumor location within the rectum, 86.8% for complete colonoscopy, 84.0% for appropriate preoperative stoma marking, 79.8% for appropriate use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 76.6% for locoregional staging, and 70.8% for distant staging. Only 836 patients (37.7%) had all 6 checklist elements complete, whereas 1381 (62.3%) did not. Compared with patients without checklist compliance, patients with checklist compliance were younger (60.0 vs 63.0 y; p < 0.001) but otherwise had similar demographic characteristics. On multivariate regression, checklist compliance was associated with lower odds of circumferential resection margin positivity (OR = 0.47 (95% CI, 0.31-0.71); p < 0.001), higher odds of an adequate lymph node harvest ≥12 (OR = 1.60 (95% CI, 1.29-2.00); p < 0.001), reduced surgical morbidity (OR = 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.95); p = 0.01), and shorter length of stay (ß = -0.87 (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.24); p = 0.007). The association between checklist compliance and reduced odds of circumferential resection margin positivity remained on sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.88); p = 0.009) when adjusting for neoadjuvant radiation. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its absence of long-term oncologic data and missing variables. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with 6 preoperative elements of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons rectal cancer surgery checklist was associated with significantly improved pathologic outcomes and reduced postoperative morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B80. EL CUMPLIMIENTO CON LOS ELEMENTOS PREOPERATORIOS DE LA LISTA DE VERIFICACIÓN DE CIRUGÍA PARA CÁNCER RECTAL DE LA SOCIEDAD AMERICANA DE CIRUJANOS DE COLON Y RECTO MEJORA LOS RESULTADOS HISTOPATOLÓGICOS Y POSTOPERATORIOS: En 2016, la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto publicó una lista de verificación de cirugía de cáncer de recto que comprende los elementos esenciales de la atención pre, intra y postoperatoria para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de cáncer de recto.Evaluar si el cumplimiento con los elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación se asoció con mejores resultados histopatológicos y postoperatorios a 30 días después de la cirugía de cáncer rectal.Estudio de cohorte retrospectiva.Hospitales norteamericanos que contribuyen al Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.Pacientes adultos que se sometieron a cirugía electiva de cáncer rectal entre 2016 y 2017.Cumplimiento de la lista de verificación con seis elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación.Resultados histopatológicos (estado del margen de resección circunferencial, estado del margen de resección distal, cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos ≥12), morbilidad quirúrgica a 30 días y duración de la estadía.En total, 2,217 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis. El cumplimiento individual de los seis ítems disponibles de la lista de verificación preoperatoria fue variable: 91.3% para la documentación previa al tratamiento de la localización del tumor dentro del recto, 86.8% para colonoscopía completa, 84.0% para el marcado preoperatorio apropiado del sitio de estoma, 79.8% para el uso apropiado de radioterapia neoadyuvante, 76.6 % para estadificación locorregional y 70.8% para estadificación distante. Solo 836 (37.7%) pacientes tenían los seis elementos de la lista de verificación completos, mientras que 1,381 (62.3%) no. En comparación con los pacientes sin cumplimiento de la lista de verificación, los pacientes con cumplimiento de la lista de verificación eran más jóvenes (60.0 vs. 63.0 años, p <0.001), pero por lo demás tenían características demográficas similares. En la regresión multivariada, el cumplimiento de la lista de verificación se asoció con menores probabilidades de positividad en el margen de resección circunferencial (OR = 0.47; IC del 95%: 0.31-0.71, p <0.001), mayores probabilidades de una cosecha adecuada de ganglios linfáticos ≥12 (OR = 1.60, IC 95% 1.29-2.00, p <0.001), menor morbilidad quirúrgica (OR = 0.78, IC 95% 0.65-0.95, p = 0.01) y menor duración de estadía (ß = -0.87, IC 95% -1.51 - - 0.24, p = 0.007). La asociación entre el cumplimiento de la lista de verificación y las probabilidades reducidas de positividad del margen de resección circunferencial se mantuvo en el análisis de sensibilidad (OR = 0.61; IC del 95%: 0.42-0.88, p = 0.009) al ser ajustado con radiación neoadyuvante.Ausencia de datos oncológicos a largo plazo y variables faltantes.El cumplimiento de seis elementos preoperatorios de la lista de verificación de cirugía de cáncer rectal de la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto se asoció con resultados histopatológicos significativamente mejores y una menor morbilidad postoperatoria. Vea el resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B80.