Exploring the Acceptable Delay for Elective Treatment of Patients With an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Reflection During a Pandemic and an Exploratory Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine the rupture risk of asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing interventions as a function of time to establish a maximal acceptable surgical delay. METHODS: A literature review was performed from inception to August 30, 2021, to assess the risk of rupture of aneurysms over time. The analysis was limited to men with asymptomatic AAAs. The data on AAA rupture risk according to diameter and follow-up time were extracted. The acceptable mortality risk for AAA patients as a function of surgical delay was further evaluated. This acceptable mortality risk was based on the acceptable risk of cardiovascular death associated with the accepted delays of coronary revascularization in coronary artery disease populations. Data on estimated surgical delays and risks were extracted using a free web-based software (WebPlotDigitizer) and plotted using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Our study identified minimal evidence as it pertains to AAA rupture risk as a function of surgical delay. The data on rupture risk of AAAs according to diameter and time were extracted from a single review and a single meta-analysis (Figure 1). The acceptable delays of semiurgent and nonurgent invasive treatment for coronary artery disease found in literature are 6 and 12 wks respectively. These acceptable delays are associated with an estimated acceptable cardiovascular mortality risk threshold of 0.47% at 6 and 12 wks. Using this threshold of estimated maximum acceptable risk and the data on the natural history of AAAs found in our review, we found that the acceptable surgical delays for AAAs would be estimated at 13-27 ds for AAAs ≥ 7 cm, 20-42 ds for 6-6.9 cm, and 32-49 ds for 5.5-5.9 cm (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified estimated surgical delays for patients with AAAs based on the acceptable maximum risk. These estimations may be used cautiously to triage patients with asymptomatic AAAs, particularly in the setting of triaging patients during local and global crises.

Patient-specific Predictors of Surgical Delay in a Large Tertiary-care Hospital Operating Room.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe patient-specific factors predictive of surgical delay in elective surgical cases. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Data were extracted retrospectively from the electronic health record of 32,818 patients who underwent surgery at a large academic hospital in Los Angeles between May 2012 and April 2017. Following bivariate analysis of patient-specific factors and surgical delay, statistically significant predictors were entered into a logistic regression model to determine the most significant predictors of surgical delay. FINDINGS: Predictors of delay included having monitored anesthesia care (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.20-1.36), American Society of Anesthesiologist class 3 or above (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.15-1.28), African American race (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39), renal failure (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32), steroid medication (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23) and Medicaid (OR,1.18; 95%CI, 1.09-1.30) or medicare insurance (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.21). Six surgical specialties also increased the odds of delay. Obesity and cardiovascular anesthesia decreased the odds of delay. CONCLUSIONS: Certain patient-specific factors including type of insurance, health status, and race were associated with surgical delay. Whereas monitored anesthesia care anesthesia was predictive of a delay, cardiovascular anesthesia reduced the odds of delay. Additionally, obese patients were less likely to experience a delay. While the electronic health record provided a large amount of detailed information, barriers existed to accessing meaningful data.

The impact of elective surgery restrictions during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic on shoulder and elbow surgery: patient perceptions.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019 and early 2020, a novel coronavirus, COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), spread across the world, creating a global pandemic. In the state of Pennsylvania, non-emergent, elective operations were temporarily delayed from proceeding with the normal standard of care. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of patients who required prescription pain medication during the surgical delay. Secondarily, we sought to determine the proportion of patients who perceived their surgical procedure as non-elective and to evaluate how symptoms were managed during the delay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single institutional database was used to retrospectively identify all shoulder and elbow surgical procedures scheduled between March 13 and May 6, 2020. Charts were manually reviewed. Patients who underwent non-shoulder and elbow-related procedures and patients treated by surgeons outside of Pennsylvania were excluded. Patients whose surgical procedures were postponed or canceled were administered a survey evaluating how symptoms were managed and perceptions regarding the delay. Preoperative functional scores were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to determine associations between procedure status, preoperative functional scores, perception of surgery, and requirement for prescription pain medication. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients were scheduled to undergo shoulder and elbow surgery in our practice in Pennsylvania. Surgery was performed as initially scheduled in 89 of these patients (26.3%), whereas surgery was postponed in 179 (71.9%) and canceled in 70 (28.1%). The average delay in surgery was 86.7 days (range, 13-299 days). Responses to the survey were received from 176 patients (70.7%) in whom surgery was postponed or canceled. During the delay, 39 patients (22.2%) required prescription pain medication. The surgical procedure was considered elective in nature by 73 patients (41%). One hundred thirty-seven patients (78%) would have moved forward with surgery if performed safely under appropriate medical guidelines. Lower preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (r = -0.36, P < .001) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores (r = -0.26, P = .016) and higher preoperative visual analog scale scores (r = 0.28, P = .009) were correlated with requiring prescription pain medication. Higher preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were positively correlated with perception of surgery as elective (r = 0.4, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing elective shoulder and elbow surgical procedures during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic experienced a delay of nearly 3 months on average. Fewer than half of patients perceived their surgical procedures as elective procedures. Nearly one-quarter of patients surveyed required extra prescription pain medicine during the delay. This study elucidates the fact that although orthopedic shoulder and elbow surgery is generally considered "elective," it is more important to a majority of patients. These findings may also be applicable to future potential mandated surgical care delays by other third-party organizations.

Delay between admission and surgery as a potential risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with hip fractures: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the impact of delay between admission and surgery on the postoperative outcomes such as mortality and related complications in elderly patients with acute hip fractures. METHODS: 840 patients aged ≥65 years from January 2009 to September 2015 were included in this retrospective study. According to the interval from admission to surgery, the patients were divided into four groups: group A (surgery within 24 h), group B (surgery within 24 h-48 h), group C (surgery within 48 h-72 h), and group D (surgery later than 72 h). Postoperative complications during hospitalization and mortality at different follow-up time points were compared. RESULTS: A total of 763 cases were successfully followed up, with an average follow-up time of 30.4 ± 13.1 months. The mean age of the patients was 79.4 ± 6.8 years. The difference in gross postoperative complications among groups was statistically significant in terms of pressure sore (P = 0.02), respiratory complications (P = 0.001), and urological complications (P < 0.001). The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified 3 factors independently associated with the postoperative morbidity, including age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.040), postoperative drainage volume (OR = 1.002) and time from admission to surgery (OR = 1.108). The difference in postoperative mortality among groups was statistically significant at 1 year (P = 0.046) after operation. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that age, postoperative drainage volume and time from admission to surgery were independently associated with mortality at 1 year postsurgery. CONCLUSION: The incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture is usually the result of multiple factors, surgeons should pay attention to the patient's age, postoperative wound status and surgical delay time, which may significantly affect the outcome of the treatment.

Delay of total joint replacement is associated with a higher 90-day revision rate and increased postoperative complications.

PURPOSE: Delay of elective surgeries, such as total joint replacement (TJR), is a common procedure in the current pandemic. In trauma surgery, postponement is associated with increased complication rates. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of postponement on surgical revision rates and postoperative complications after elective TJR. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 10,140 consecutive patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) between 2011 and 2020, the effect of surgical delay on 90-day surgical revision rate, as well as internal and surgical complication rates, was investigated in a university high-volume arthroplasty center using the institute's joint registry and data of the hospital administration. Moreover, multivariate logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounding variables. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred and eighty TJRs patients were identified with a mean delay of 13.5 ± 29.6 days. Postponed TJR revealed a higher 90-day revision rate (7.1-4.5%, p < 0.001), surgical complications (3.2-1.9%, p < 0.001), internal complications (1.8-1.2% p < 0.041) and transfusion rate (2.6-1.8%, p < 0.023) than on-time TJR. Logistic regression analysis confirmed delay of TJRs as independent risk factor for 90-day revision rate [OR 1.42; 95% CI (1.18-1.72); p < 0.001] and surgical complication rates [OR 1.51; 95% CI (1.14-2.00); p = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: Alike trauma surgery, delay in elective primary TJR correlates with higher revision and complication rates. Therefore, scheduling should be performed under consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective cohort study.

The impact of COVID-19 on the progression and management of periocular basal cell carcinomas.

PURPOSE: To identify whether the delay caused by COVID-19 had an impact on the peroperative size of lesions and the choice of reconstruction performed in patients with periocular basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). METHODS: We undertook a retrospective study looking at whether the delay caused by COVID-19 had an impact on the lesion size at the time of surgery, and consequently, on the choice of surgical repair. Results were compared to an equivalent time period a year prior to the onset of COVID-19. Elective surgery was stepped down at our hospital between March and June 2020. We collected data on patients that underwent BCC excisions between July 2020 and April 2021 and for an equivalent time period from 2019 to 2020. Measurements at listing were compared with those preoperatively obtained and from histological specimen. RESULTS: Analysis using the paired T-test yielded a p-value 0.005 for the growth of the lesion between listing and surgery after the onset of the pandemic, while pre-COVID the p-value was 0.04. Most patients were able to undergo the same procedure as planned for despite the delay and statistically significant growth while awaiting surgery. CONCLUSION: Literature suggests that BCC operations can be safely delayed up to 3 months. Our longest wait post-COVID was 12 months with a mean wait of 5 months. Only two patients in this group had a more invasive surgery than planned. We conclude that the delay caused by the pandemic, even beyond 3 months, had a minimal impact on the surgical plan and outcomes for patients with BCCs.

The prognostic value of surgical delay in patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mortality following major emergency abdominal surgery is high. Surgical delay is regarded as an important modifiable prognostic factor. Current care-bundles aim at reducing surgical delay, most often using a six-hour cut-off. We aimed to investigate the evidence supporting the in-hospital delay cutoffs currently used. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included studies assessing in-hospital surgical delay in major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Studies were only included if they performed adjusted analysis. Surgical delay beyond six hours was the primary cutfrom interest. The primary outcome was mortality at longest follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted if possible. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies were included with 16,772 participants. Two studies evaluated delay in unselected major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Three studies applied a six-hour cutoff, but only a study on acute mesenteric ischemia showed an association between delay and mortality. Meta-analysis showed no association with mortality at this cutoff. An association was seen between hourly delay and mortality risk estimate, 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 - 1.03), and on subgroup analysis of hourly delay in perforated peptic ulcer patients, risk estimate, 1.02 (95% CI, 1.0 - 1.03). All risk estimates had a very low Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation score. CONCLUSION: Little evidence supports a six-hour cutoff in unselected major emergency abdominal surgical patients. We found an association between hourly delay and increased mortality; however, evidence supporting this was primarily in patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. This review is limited by the quality of the individual studies.

Surgical delays of less than 1 year in Mohs surgery associated with tumor growth in moderately- and poorly-differentiated squamous cell carcinomas but not lower-grade squamous cell carcinomas or basal cell carcinomas: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is controversial and limited concerning whether surgical delays are associated with tumor growth for cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and basal cell carcinomas. OBJECTIVE: Identify tumor subpopulations that may demonstrate an association between tumor growth and surgical delay. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 299 SCCs and 802 basal cell carcinomas treated with Mohs surgery at a single institution. Time interval from biopsy to surgery represented surgical delay. Change in major diameter (ΔMD) from size at biopsy to postoperative defect represented tumor growth. Independent predictors of ΔMD were identified by multivariate analysis. Linear regression was then utilized to assess for whether the ΔMD from these independent predictors trended with surgical delay. RESULTS: Surgical delays ranged from 0 to 331 days. Among SCCs, histologic subtype and prior treatment were identified as independent predictors of ΔMD. Significant associations between ΔMD and surgical delay were found for poorly- and moderately-differentiated SCCs, demonstrating growth rates of 0.28 cm and 0.24 cm per month of delay, respectively. The ΔMD for SCCs with prior treatment and basal cell carcinoma subgroups did not vary with surgical delay. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single center. CONCLUSION: Surgical delays of less than a year were associated with tumor growth for higher-grade SCCs, with effect sizes bearing potential for clinical significance.

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study.

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease.

A retrospective pilot study of preoperative mobilization program for older adults with hip fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasible effect of a preoperative mobilization program for older hip fracture patients who waited more than two days before surgery. METHODS: A total of 38 patients with hip fracture were analyzed in this retrospective descriptive pilot study. The modified Barthel index (MBI) was used to measure functional outcome. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the changes of pain degree during preoperative mobilization. The perioperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: After the preoperative mobilization program was implemented, the MBI score was improved immediately and further improved after surgery until 3 months after discharge. On the premise of analgesia, no patient experienced severe pain during preoperative mobilization. Perioperative complications occurred in 2 (5.3%) patients. CONCLUSION: For older patients with hip fracture, the preoperative mobilization program may be a feasible method, which may have a positive effect on promoting functional recovery and preventing perioperative complications.

Preventing Surgical Delay and Cancellation with Patient-Centered Interventions.

Delay and cancellation can significantly impact cost and outcomes among surgical patients. While the causes of delay and cancellation are not fully enumerated, possible reasons include delivery-related causes such as facility, equipment, and provider availability as well as patient-related issues such as readiness and health status. Despite limited research explaining patient-related causes, there are many studies that evaluate patient-centered interventions to decrease delay and cancellation. This article highlights patient-centered interventions including preoperative clinics, preoperative screening, and focused education that have been shown to reduce delay and cancellation. This information provides perianesthesia nurses and advanced practice nurses ideas to maximize their roles in improving efficiency by prevention of delay and cancellation. This article should also stimulate additional research to help better understand the causes and the role of the nurse in the implementation of evidence-based practice projects that use patient-centered interventions.

Operative Delay in Adults with Appendicitis: Time is Money.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that operative delay of up to 24 h is not associated with adverse outcomes among patients undergoing emergent appendectomy. However, the fiscal implication of operative delay is not well described in adults. We sought to examine the effect of delayed appendectomy on clinical outcomes and hospital cost. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing nonelective laparoscopic appendectomy from 2014 to 2018 at both a tertiary care center and an affiliated short-stay hospital. Using a unique data set constructed from merged electronic health record and patient-level hospital financial data, patients with delayed surgery, defined as >12 h from emergency department (ED) arrival to operation, were compared with patients who underwent surgery within 12 h. Patient-specific variables were analyzed for their association with resource utilization, and subsequent multivariable linear regression was performed for total hospital cost. RESULTS: 1372 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy during the study period. 938 patients (68.3%) underwent surgery within 12 h of ED arrival, and 434 patients (31.6%) underwent delayed surgery. Delayed cases had longer length of stay (44.6 ± 42.5 versus 34.5 ± 36.5 h, P < 0.01) and increased total hospital cost ($9326 ± 4691 versus $8440 ± 3404, P < 0.01). The cost difference persisted on multivariable analysis (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between delayed cases and nondelayed cases for operative time, intraoperative findings, including rate of perforation, or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although safe, delayed appendectomy is associated with an increased length of stay and increased total hospital costs compared with appendectomy within 12 h of reaching the ED.

Variation in surgical demand and time to hip fracture repair: a Canadian database study.

BACKGROUND: Competing demands for operative resources may affect time to hip fracture surgery. We sought to determine the time to hip fracture surgery by variation in demand in Canadian hospitals. METHODS: We obtained discharge abstracts of 151,952 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery for a hip fracture between January, 2004 and December, 2012 in nine Canadian provinces. We compared median time to surgery (in days) when demand could be met within a two-day benchmark and when demand required more days, i.e. clearance time, to provide surgery, overall and stratified by presence of medical reasons for delay. RESULTS: For persons admitted when demand corresponded to a 2-day clearance time, 68% of patients underwent surgery within the 2-day benchmark. When demand corresponded to a clearance time of one week, 51% of patients underwent surgery within 2 days. Compared to demand that could be served within the two-day benchmark, adjusted median time to surgery was 5.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-6.1), 12.2% (95% CI 10.3-14.2), and 22.0% (95% CI 17.7-26.2) longer, when demand required 4, 6, and 7 or more days to clear the backlog, respectively. After adjustment, delays in median time to surgery were similar for those with and without medical reasons for delay. CONCLUSION: Increases in demand for operative resources were associated with dose-response increases in the time needed for half of hip fracture patients to undergo surgery. Such delays may be mitigated through better anticipation of day-to-day supply and demand and increased response capability.

Daytime versus after-hours surgery outcomes in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies found that hip fracture patient outcome is greatly influenced by the time from admission to surgery. To avoid surgical delay, surgery for hip fracture may be performed at night or weekends. However, after-hours surgery may lead to a reduction in support staff and to surgeon fatigue, which ultimately increases mortality and complications. Therefore, we wanted to compare the outcomes of daytime and after-hours surgery in hip fracture patients. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Springer databases from inception to December 2019. Relevant studies comparing the results of operations performed at different time periods were included. The main clinical outcomes included total complications, mortality, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospitalization. Data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed. RESULTS: Nine retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria; the studies included a total of 583,290 patients. We found no significant differences in mortality, surgical time or blood loss between daytime and after-hours surgery in hip fracture patients (P > 0.05). Of note, the patients who underwent after-hours surgery had fewer surgical complications (P < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospitalization (P = 0.021) than those who underwent daytime surgery. CONCLUSION: After-hours surgery for hip fracture is safe. To avoid surgical delay, after-hours surgery is still a viable and even necessary option.

Comorbidity as the dominant predictor of mortality after hip fracture surgeries.

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of surgical delay and comorbidities with the risk of mortality after hip fracture surgeries. We found that CCI was the dominant factor in predicting both short- and long-term mortality, and its effect is vital in the prognostication of survivorship. INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture is a growing concern and a delay in surgery is often associated with a poorer outcome. We hypothesized that a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) portends greater risk of mortality than a delay in surgery. Our aim was to investigate the associations of surgical delay and CCI with risk of mortality and to determine the dominant predictor. METHODS: This retrospective study examines hip fracture data from a large tertiary hospital in Singapore over the period January 2013 through December 2015. Data collected included age, gender, CCI, delay of surgery, fracture patterns, and the American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) score. Post-operative outcomes analyzed included mortality at inpatient, at 30 and 90 days, and at 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients with hip fractures were included in this study. Study mortality rates were 1.1% (n = 11) during in-hospital admission, 1.8% (n = 18) at 30 days, 2.7% (n = 27) at 90 days, and 13.3% (n = 129) at 2 years. Lost to follow-up rate at 2 years was 3.3%. We found that CCI was consistently the dominant factor in predicting both short- and long-term mortality. A CCI score of 5 was identified as the inflection point above which comorbidity at baseline presented a greater risk of mortality than a delay in surgery. CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed that CCI is the dominant predictor of both short- and long-term mortality compared with delay in surgery. The effect of CCI is vital in the prognostication of mortality in patients surgically treated for hip fractures.

Safe delayed procedure of nipple reconstruction in poorly circulated nipple.

Nipple-areolar complex reconstruction represents the final step in breast reconstruction. However, there is no gold standard nipple reconstruction technique that addresses the issue of blood circulation in the flap, which is the most basic complication. Nipple reconstruction was performed in 21 patients. A delayed procedure was performed when a poor outcome was expected due to marginal pinpoint bleeding in the distal tip after flap elevation during nipple reconstruction. The delayed nipple reconstruction can be viewed as a safe and reliable method for improving nipple blood circulation, reducing complications, and enabling long-term nipple projection maintenance in high-risk patients.

Quality assurance in segmental neck of femur fractures.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report a rare case of segmental neck of femur fracture (SNoFF) and highlight its quality assurance and governance implications with respect to national guidelines, care pathways and best practice tariff. Design/methodology/approach Case report of an SNoFF in a 67-year-old woman treated at a district general hospital (DGH) was used in this study. Findings SNoFF required additional implants that delayed the surgery by five days. The authors were unable to adhere to the British Orthopaedic Association standards for trauma and Scottish Inter-Collegiate Guidelines Network recommendations which indicate that all neck of femur fractures (NoFFs) be fixed within 48 h. Though the patient was discharged without any untoward event and had an uneventful recovery, this case led us to introspect and learn how best to avoid such an incident from repeating again. Research limitations/implications This case led to an overhaul of NoFF and trauma services. The local logistics was restructured to procure "Trochanteric grip plates" within 24 h to provide mandated quality of care in an effort towards improving patient experience/outcomes. Originality/value SNoFF are rare injuries and its diagnosis is either delayed or missed in at least 20 per cent of the cases on initial evaluation. The non-availability of additional implants readily on the shelf coupled with lack of a trauma bed at the tertiary centre resulted in an unacceptable delay from admission to definitive surgery. The authors recommend that all DGHs have a mechanism/emergency procurement procedure system in place to obtain the required instrumentation kits rapidly through a sharing scheme with regional hospitals or through implant vendor to avoid unacceptable delays to surgery.

[Does the delay from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy influence the risk of biochemical recurrence?] / Le delai entre biopsies de prostate et prostatectomie radicale influence-t-il le risque de recidive ?

INTRODUCTION: The influence of the delay between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy for patients with localized prostate cancer is controversial. The objective of this study was to establish a time limit between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy beyond which the risks of upgradging and biochemical recurrence (BCR) are increased. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 2013 and January 2017, a retrospective analysis of the clinical, biological and histological data of 513 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was performed in a single center. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the risk of BCR by the difference between post-biopsy USCF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of the upgrading by the difference between the Gleason score on biopsy and on surgical specimen. The risks of BCR and upgrading were compared by Student test according to different delays between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy. The shortest delays for which a significant difference was found were reported. RESULTS: In this study, 513 patients were included. The median age at the time of the biopsy was 65 years (IQR: 60-69). The median preoperative PSA was 7.30ng/mL (IQR: 5.60-9.94). The median time between biopsy and surgery was 108 days (IQR: 86-141). For the entire cohort, the risk of BCR was significantly higher above a threshold of 90 days (P=0.039). No threshold was found for Gleason 6(3+3) patients. A 90-day threshold was found for Gleason 7(3+4) patients (P=0.038). Gleason patients≥8 had more upgrading beyond a 60-day threshold (P=0.040). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that after a 3 months delay, the risk of BCR was significantly higher for localized prostate cancer. It seemed possible to extend this period for low-risk patients, whereas it seemed necessary to keep it for intermediate-risks and to reduce it to 2 months for high-risks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Hip Fractures: Appropriate Timing to Operative Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to (1) identify the incidence of surgical delay in hip fractures, (2) evaluate the time point surgical delay puts patients at increased risk for complications, and (3) identify risk factors for surgical delay in the setting of surgical management of hip fractures. METHODS: A multi-center database was queried for patients of 60 years of age or older undergoing surgical treatment of a hip fracture. Surgical delay was defined by days from admission until surgical intervention. Univariate analyses and multivariate analyses were performed on all groups. RESULTS: A total of 4215 patients underwent surgery for their hip fracture. Of those experiencing surgical delay, 3304 (78%) patients experienced surgical delay of ≥1 day, 1314 (31%) had delay of ≥2 days, and 480 (11%) experienced delay of ≥3 days. There was a significant difference in complications if patients experienced surgical delay of ≥2 days (P ≤ .01). Multivariate analyses identified multiple risk factors for delay of ≥2 days including congestive heart failure (odds ratio 3.09, 95% confidence interval 2.04-4.66) and body mass index ≥40 (odds ratio 2.31, 95% confidence interval 1.31-4.08). Subgroup analysis identified that patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were not at risk for complications with surgical delay of ≥2 days. CONCLUSION: Surgical delay of ≥2 days in the setting of hip fractures is common and confers an increased risk of complications in those undergoing non-total hip arthroplasty procedures. We recommend surgical intervention prior to 48 hours from hospital admission when possible. Healthcare systems can utilize our non-modifiable risk factors when performing quality assessment and cost accounting.

Association between surgical delay and survival in high-risk emergency abdominal surgery. A population-based Danish cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with perforated peptic ulcer, surgical delay has recently been shown to be a critical determinant of survival. The aim of the present population-based cohort study was to evaluate the association between surgical delay by hour and mortality in high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in general. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All in-patients aged ≥ 18 years having emergency abdominal laparotomy or laparoscopy performed within 48 h of admission between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 in 13 Danish hospitals were included. Baseline and clinical data, including surgical delay and 90-day mortality were collected. The crude and adjusted association between surgical delay by hour and 90-day mortality was assessed by binary logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2803 patients were included. Median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 66 (51-78) years, and 515 patients (18.4%) died within 90 days of surgery. Over the first 24 h after hospital admission, each hour of surgical delay beyond hospital admission was associated with a median (IQR) decrease in 90-day survival of 2.2% (1.9-3.3%). No statistically significant association between surgical delay by hour and 90-day mortality was shown; crude and adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval 1.016 (1.004-1.027) and 1.003 (0.989-1.017), respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary finding. CONCLUSIONS: In the present population-based cohort study of high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, no statistically significant adjusted association between mortality and surgical delay was found. Additional research in diagnosis-specific subgroups of high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is warranted.