Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study examined utilization and conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer. Secondary aims were to examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy from each approach. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was reviewed for all cases of non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Utilization rates of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches were examined. Patients were split into cohorts by approach. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and surgical procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed by multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes and multivariable general linear models for continuous outcomes. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariable cox-proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2016, there was a statistically significant increase in utilization of the robotic and laparoscopic approaches over the study period and a statistically significant decrease in utilization of the open approach. The conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic cohorts were 7.0% and 15.7%, p < 0.0001. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically lower conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches for rectosigmoid and rectal tumors and for LAR and APR. Converted cohorts had statistically significant higher odds of short term mortality than the non-converted cohorts (p < 0.05).Laparoscopic conversion had statistically higher odds of positive margins (p < 0.0001) and 30-day unplanned readmission (p < 0.0001) than the laparoscopic non-conversion. Increased adjusted mortality hazard was seen for converted laparoscopy relative to non-converted laparoscopy (p = 0.0019). CONCLUSION: From 2010 to 2016, there was a significant increase in utilization of minimally invasive approaches to surgical management of non-metastatic rectal cancer. A robotic approach demonstrated decreased conversion rates than a laparoscopic approach at the rectosigmoid junction and rectum and for LAR and APR. Improved outcomes were seen in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to those that converted to laparotomy.

Did More Otolaryngology Residency Applicants Match at Their Home Institutions in 2021? Investigating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of applicants who matched to their home otolaryngology program during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous 5 years. METHODS: A "home program match" status was identified for residents in each PGY level and in incoming interns. The "home match proportion" (HMP) was then calculated for each program for each year from 2016 to 2021. The difference in the distribution of home matches between PGY0 and PGY 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were analyzed using the chi-square independence test and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was declared at P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 1885 residents were identified from 101 otolaryngology residency programs. The distribution of PGY0s who home matched was statistically higher when separately compared to PGY1-5s. (PGY0 vs PGY 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 96 [30.1%] vs 63 [19.3%] P = .002, 73 [22.9%] P = .048, 50 [16.3%] P < 0.0005, 59 [19.2%] P = .002, 52 [16.9%] P < .0005). There was no statistical difference in any binary combination within PGY1 through PGY5. CONCLUSION: Nearly a third of applicants matched to their home institution for otolaryngology during the 2021 application cycle, a statistically significant increase compared to an average of the previous 5 years. While there are likely many reasons for this increase, we believe that the severely limited nature of away rotations due to the COVID-19 pandemic played a significant role in this outcome.

Complications associated with PEAK PlasmaBlade from 2010 to 2020 from MAUDE.

The pulse-electron avalanche knife (PEAK) PlasmaBlade 3.0 and 4.0 (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) is an electrosurgical technology that is widely used in surgery. Our study aimed to summarize device malfunctions, patient injuries, and interventions related to PEAK PlasmaBlade 3.0 and 4.0. The US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for reports of PlasmaBlade adverse events from June 6, 2010, to August 30, 2020. Data were extracted from reports pertaining to PlasmaBlade 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 384 medical device reports were identified, from which 424 adverse events were extracted. Of those, 348 (82.1%) were device malfunctions, 53 (12.5%) were patient injuries, and 23 (5.4%) were operator injuries. Device malfunctions were most frequently caused by delaminated coating (110, 25.9%), followed by ignition or fire (56, 13.2%). Operator injury was most frequently caused by thermal injury (19, 4.5%), followed by laceration (4, 0.9%). Pacemakers (22, 57.9%) were the most common devices causing interference. PEAK PlasmaBlade 3.0 and 4.0 have demonstrated utility during surgeries but are associated with adverse events. Interventions that aim to educate physicians on potential risks may help reduce the incidence of complications. Future studies with standardized reporting protocols are warranted.