Timed up and go test and long-term survival in older adults after oncologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Physical performance tests are a reflection of health in older adults. The Timed Up and Go test is an easy-to-administer tool measuring physical performance. In older adults undergoing oncologic surgery, an impaired TUG has been associated with higher rates of postoperative complications and increased short term mortality. The objective of this study is to investigate the association between physical performance and long term outcomes. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years undergoing surgery for solid tumors in three prospective cohort studies, 'PICNIC', 'PICNIC B-HAPPY' and 'PREOP', were included. The TUG was administered 2 weeks before surgery, a score of ≥12 seconds was considered to be impaired. Primary endpoint was 5-year survival, secondary endpoint was 30-day major complications. Survival proportions were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox- and logistic regression analysis were used for survival and complications respectively. Hazard ratios (aHRs) and Odds ratios (aOR) were adjusted for literature-based and clinically relevant variables, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated using multivariable models. RESULTS: In total, 528 patients were included into analysis. Mean age was 75 years (SD 5.98), in 123 (23.3%) patients, the TUG was impaired. Five-year survival proportions were 0.56 and 0.49 for patients with normal TUG and impaired TUG respectively. An impaired TUG was an independent predictor of increased 5-year mortality (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02-2.02). The TUG was not a significant predictor of 30-day major complications (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 0.70-3.06). CONCLUSIONS: An impaired TUG is associated with increased 5-year mortality in older adults undergoing surgery for solid tumors. It requires further investigation whether an impaired TUG can be reversed and thus improve long-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PICNIC studies are registered in the Dutch Clinical Trial database at www.trialregister.nl: NL4219 (2010-07-22) and NL4441 (2014-06-01). The PREOP study was registered with the Dutch trial registry at www.trialregister.nl: NL1497 (2008-11-28) and in the United Kingdom register (Research Ethics Committee reference 10/H1008/59).  https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/?page=15&query=preop&date_from=&date_to=&research_type=&rec_opinion=&relevance=true .

Long-Term Survival and Risk of Institutionalization in Onco-Geriatric Surgical Patients: Long-Term Results of the PREOP Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term survival and institutionalization in onco-geriatric surgical patients, and to analyze the association between these outcomes and a preoperative risk score. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. SETTING: International and multicenter locations. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 70 years or older undergoing elective surgery for a malignant solid tumor at five centers (n = 229). MEASUREMENTS: We assessed long-term survival and institutionalization using the Preoperative Risk Estimation for Onco-geriatric Patients (PREOP) score, developed to predict the 30-day risk of major complications. The PREOP score collected data about sex, type of surgery, and the American Society for Anesthesiologists classification, as well as the Timed Up & Go test and the Nutritional Risk Screening results. An overall score higher than 8 was considered abnormal. RESULTS: We included 149 women and 80 men (median age = 76 y; interquartile range = 8). Survival at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively was 84%, 77%, and 56%, respectively. Moreover, survival at 1 year was worse for patients with a PREOP risk score higher than 8 (70%) compared with 8 or lower (91%). Of those alive at 1 year, 43 (26%) were institutionalized, and by 2 years, almost half of the entire cohort (46%) were institutionalized or had died. A PREOP risk score higher than 8 was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio = 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-4.0), irrespective of stage and age, but not with being institutionalized (odds ratios = 1 y, 1.6 [95% CI = .7-3.8]; 2 y, 2.2 [95% CI = .9-5.5]). CONCLUSION: A high PREOP score is associated with mortality but not with remaining independent. Despite acceptable survival rates, physical function may deteriorate after surgery. It is imperative to discuss treatment goals and expectations preoperatively to determine if they are feasible. Using the PREOP risk score can provide an objective measure on which to base decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1235-1241, 2020.

Unusual case of respiratory embarrassment secondary to tracheal compression by a dilated oesophagus in a patient with recurrent achalasia.

We present the case of a 79-year-old woman with recurrent achalasia following a laparoscopic Heller's cardiomyotomy. The patient presented to the emergency department, with epigastric pain, severe dyspnoea and profound respiratory acidosis. She required intubation and ventilation followed by gastric decompression with nasogastric tube and the administration of intravenous antibiotics for a lower respiratory tract infection. Once stable, she underwent a CT scan revealing a massively dilated oesophagus causing marked tracheal compression. She received a period of continuous positive airway pressure ventilation while on the intensive care unit, for persistent low saturations, however, this was promptly ceased due to exacerbation of gastric dilation and fears over perforation. The patient responded well to conservative measures and was discharged home 18 days later awaiting follow-up with operating consultant surgeon.

Non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.

BACKGROUND: Surgery used to be the treatment of choice in cases of blunt hepatic injury, but this approach gradually changed over the last two decades as increasing non-operative management (NOM) of splenic injury led to its use for hepatic injury. The improvement in critical care monitoring and computed tomographic scanning, as well as the more frequent use of interventional radiology techniques, has helped to bring about this change to non-operative management. Liver trauma ranges from a small capsular tear, without parenchymal laceration, to massive parenchymal injury with major hepatic vein/retrohepatic vena cava lesions. In 1994, the Organ Injury Scaling Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) revised the Hepatic Injury Scale to have a range from grade I to VI. Minor injuries (grade I or II) are the most frequent liver injuries (80% to 90% of all cases); severe injuries are grade III-V lesions; grade VI lesions are frequently incompatible with survival. In the medical literature, the majority of patients who have undergone NOM have low-grade liver injuries. The safety of NOM in high-grade liver lesions, AAST grade IV and V, remains a subject of debate as a high incidence of liver and collateral extra-abdominal complications are still described. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-operative management compared to operative management in high-grade (grade III-V) blunt hepatic injury. SEARCH METHODS: The search for studies was run on 14 April 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PubMed, ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and we screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials that compare non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently applied the selection criteria to relevant study reports. We used standard methodological procedures as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We were unable to find any randomised controlled trials of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In order to further explore the preliminary findings provided by animal models and observational clinical studies that suggests there may be a beneficial effect of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury, large, high quality randomised trials are needed.

Role of damage control surgery in the treatment of Hinchey III and IV sigmoid diverticulitis: a tailored strategy.

Many of the treatment strategies for sigmoid diverticulitis are actually focusing on nonoperative and minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the actual role of damage control surgery (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis caused by perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.A literature search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published from 1960 to July 2013. Comparative and noncomparative studies that included patients who underwent DCS for complicated diverticulitis were considered.Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, duration of open abdomen, intensive care unit length of stay, reoperation, bowel resection performed at first operation, fecal diversion, method, and timing of closure of abdominal wall were the main outcomes of interest.According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses algorithm for the literature search and review, 10 studies were included in this systematic review. DCS was exclusively performed in diverticulitis patients with septic shock or requiring vasopressors intraoperatively. Two surgical different approaches were highlighted: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment with or without stoma or reconstruction in situ, and laparoscopic washing and drainage without colonic resection.Despite the heterogeneity of patient groups, clinical settings, and interventions included in this review, DCS appears to be a promising strategy for the treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis, complicated by septic shock. A tailored approach to each patient seems to be appropriate.

"Timed Up & Go": a screening tool for predicting 30-day morbidity in onco-geriatric surgical patients? A multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of the "Timed Up & Go" (TUG), a validated assessment tool, on a prospective cohort study and to compare these findings to the ASA classification, an instrument commonly used for quantifying patients' physical status and anesthetic risk. BACKGROUND: In the onco-geriatric surgical population it is important to identify patients at increased risk of adverse post-operative outcome to minimize the risk of over- and under-treatment and improve outcome in this population. METHODS: 280 patients ≥70 years undergoing elective surgery for solid tumors were prospectively recruited. Primary endpoint was 30-day morbidity. Pre-operatively TUG was administered and ASA-classification was registered. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%-CI). Absolute risks and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC's) were calculated. RESULTS: 180 (64.3%) patients (median age: 76) underwent major surgery. 55 (20.1%) patients experienced major complications. 50.0% of patients with high TUG and 25.6% of patients with ASA≥3 experienced major complications (absolute risks). TUG and ASA were independent predictors of the occurrence of major complications (TUG:OR 3.43; 95%-CI = 1.14-10.35. ASA1 vs. 2:OR 5.91; 95%-CI = 0.93-37.77. ASA1 vs. 3&4:OR 12.77; 95%-CI = 1.84-88.74). AUCTUG was 0.64 (95%-CI = 0.55-0.73, p = 0.001) and AUCASA was 0.59 (95%-CI = 0.51-0.67, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Twice as many onco-geriatric patients at risk of post-operative complications, who might benefit from pre-operative interventions, are identified using TUG than when using ASA.

Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay. METHODS: For this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST. RESULTS: We identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison. CONCLUSIONS: NOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups.

Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is one of the leading causes of death in any age group. The 'lethal triad' of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy has been recognized as a significant cause of death in patients with traumatic injuries. In order to prevent the lethal triad two factors are essential, early control of bleeding and prevention of further heat loss. In patients with major abdominal trauma, damage control surgery (DCS) avoids extensive procedures on unstable patients, stabilizes potentially fatal problems at initial operation, and applies staged surgery after successful initial resuscitation. It is not currently known whether DCS is superior to immediate surgery for patients with major abdominal trauma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of damage control surgery compared to traditional immediate definitive surgical treatment for patients with major abdominal trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12 of 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science: Science Citation Index & ISI Proceedings, Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister, Clinicaltrials.gov, Zetoc, and CINAHL for all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We did not restrict the searches by language, date, or publication status. The search was through December 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of damage control surgery versus immediate traditional surgical repair were included in this review. We included patients with major abdominal trauma (Abbreviated Injury Scale > 3) who were undergoing surgery. Patient selection was crucial as patients with relatively simple abdominal injuries should not undergo unnecessary procedures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently evaluated the search results. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2551 studies were identified by our search. No randomised controlled trials comparing DCS with immediate and definitive repair in patients with major abdominal trauma were found. A total of 2551 studies were excluded because they were not relevant to the review topic and two studies were excluded with reasons after examining the full-text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that supports the efficacy of damage control surgery with respect to traditional laparotomy in patients with major abdominal trauma is limited.

Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading causes of death and disability in young people. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a principal cause of death. Trauma patients are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The incidence varies according to the method used to measure the DVT and the location of the thrombosis. Due to prolonged rest and coagulation abnormalities, trauma patients are at increased risk of thrombus formation. Thromboprohylaxis, either mechanical or pharmacological, may decrease mortality and morbidity in trauma patients who survive beyond the first day in hospital, by decreasing the risk of VTE in this population.A previous systematic review did not find evidence of effectiveness for either pharmacological or mechanical interventions. However, this systematic review was conducted 10 years ago and most of the included studies were of poor quality. Since then new trials have been conducted. Although current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients, there has not been a comprehensive and updated systematic review since the one published. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients on mortality and incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. To compare the effects of different thromboprophylaxis interventions and their effects according to the type of trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (searched April 30 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2009, issue 2 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to April (week 3) 2009, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to (week 17) April 2009, PubMed (searched 29 April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled clinical trials involving people of any age with major trauma defined by one or more of the following criteria: physiological: penetrating or blunt trauma with more than two organs and unstable vital signs, anatomical: people with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) higher than 9, mechanism: people who are involved in a 'high energy' event with a risk for severe injury despite stable or normal vital signs. We excluded trials that only recruited outpatients, trials that recruited people with hip fractures only, or people with acute spinal injuries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors, in pairs (LB and CM, EF and RC), independently examined the titles and the abstracts, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the trials and analysed the data. PP resolved any disagreement between the authors. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included (n=3005). Four trials compared the effect of any type (mechanical and/or pharmacological) of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT in people with trauma (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84). Mechanical prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.73). Pharmacological prophylaxis was more effective than mechanical methods at reducing the risk of DVT (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95). LMWH appeared to reduce the risk of DVT compared to UH (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94). People who received both mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis had a lower risk of DVT (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.60) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that thromboprophylaxis reduces mortality or PE in any of the comparisons assessed. However, we found some evidence that thromboprophylaxis prevents DVT. Although the strength of the evidence was not high, taking into account existing information from other related conditions such as surgery, we recommend the use of any DVT prophylactic method for people with severe trauma.