Open Versus Endovascular Repair With Covered Stents for Complex Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: Cost Analysis Results.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work is to value cost-effectiveness of complex aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) revascularization, by comparing in-hospital clinical outcomes and detailed costs of hospitalization of open and endovascular techniques. METHODS: This observational single-center retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent AIOD revascularization from May 2008 to February 2018 and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into 2 groups: open surgical repair and endovascular repair. Inclusion criteria were type C and D AIOD, and type of intervention: aorto-bifemoral bypass and covered kissing stenting. Costs were directly compared between the 2 groups, and subsequently a multivariate logistic regression model was performed to define which group most influenced major in-hospital costs. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of long-term mortality and primary patency (PP). RESULTS: The 2 groups included 50 patients each, and all patients had a bilateral iliac axis revascularization. Mean age was 67 ± 9 years and 71% of patients were males. The open surgical repair group had a significantly longer length of hospitalization (P < 0.001) and in-hospital medical complications rate (22%, P = 0.003). No differences were found in the total cumulative cost of hospitalization, including ward, intensive care unit, and operating room. In a multivariate logistic model, higher total hospitalization costs were not significantly associated with either one or the other type of treatment. We did not find any statistically significant differences in overall medium-term survival (P = 0.298) and PP (P = 0.188), which were not influenced by the type of revascularization on Cox proportional hazard models (overall survival: hazard ratio 2.09 confidence interval 95% [0.90-4.84] P = 0.082; PP: hazard ratio 1.82 confidence interval 95% [0.56-6.16] P = 0.302). CONCLUSIONS: Total in-hospital stay cost analysis did not reveal significant differences between aorto-bifemoral bypasses and covered kissing stentings for AIOD revascularization.

Diode Laser Therapy for Radiation-Induced Vascular Ectasia: Long-Term Results and Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Collateral damage to surrounding healthy tissues has been reported in patients who undergo radiation therapy for pelvic malignancies. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and cost efficiency of endoscopic diode laser therapy in patients diagnosed with chronic radiation proctitis (CRP). METHODS: The data of 24 patients (median age 78, range 67-90 years) who presented rectal bleeding and were diagnosed with CRP after undergoing high-dose radiotherapy for prostatic cancer and underwent diode laser therapy were evaluated retrospectively. Non-contact fibers were used in the patients who underwent the procedure without sedation in an outpatient setting. RESULTS: The patients underwent a median of two sessions; overall, a mean of 1591 J of laser energy per session was used. No complications were noted during or after the procedures. Bleeding was completely resolved in 21/24 (88%) patients, and two patients showed improvement (96%). It was not necessary to suspend antiplatelet (six patients) or anticoagulant (four patients) therapy during the treatment course. The mean cost per session was EUR 473.4. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings demonstrated that endoscopic non-contact diode laser treatment in CRP patients is safe, effective and cost efficient. For this procedure, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy suspension, intraprocedural sedation and hospital admission are not required.

[The reorganization of the strategies of a surgical department and the nosocomial diffusion of Covid-19]. / La riorganizzazione delle risorse di un reparto chirurgico e la diffusione nosocomiale del Covid-19.

. The reorganization of the strategies of a surgical department and the nosocomial diffusion of Covid-19. INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, preventive measures and patients' selection were adopted to allow the treatment of non-deferrable oncological and trauma cases and to contain hospital diffusion of the virus. The reorganization of the ward management associated to the training of healthcare providers are the first available interventions. AIM: To describe the interventions implemented to limit the spread of virus during the peak of pandemic in a high daily turn-over 25 beds surgical ward (9 patient admitted per day/mean duration of hospital stay 2.3 days). METHOD: Description of the interventions implemented and of the admissions from March 9 to May 18 2020, and the swab results. RESULTS: 392 patients were treated in the period considered (342 were scheduled cases - 50 urgent cases; 364 were adults and 28 children). All scheduled patients underwent a screening survey, 5% of those contacted showed a risk factor at the interview and were rescheduled; 190 patients underwent a preoperative screening swab, all with negative results. None of healthcare providers was positive to swabs. CONCLUSIONS: The prompt application of preventive measures and patients screening (preoperative interview and screening swab) possibly allowed to control the spread of SARS-CoV2 in our hospital. Sharing our experience would allow to find consensus to guarantee the safety for patients and healthcare workers.

COVID-19 challenge: proactive management of a Tertiary University Hospital in Veneto Region, Italy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to describe the successful emergency plan implemented by Padova University Hospital (AOUP) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The emergency plan included early implementation of procedures aimed at meeting the increasing demand for testing and care while ensuring safe and timely care of all patients and guaranteeing the safety of healthcare workers. RESULTS: From 21 February to 1 May 2020, there were 3,862 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Province of Padua. A total of 485 patients were hospitalized in AOUP, of which 91 were admitted to the ICU; 12 .6% of admitted patients died. The average bed occupancy rate in the ICU was 61.1% (IQR 43.6%:77.4%). Inpatient surgery and inpatient admissions were kept for 76% and 74%, respectively, compared to March 2019. A total of 123,077 swabs were performed, 19.3% of which (23,725 swabs) to screen AOUP workers. The screening of all staff showed that 137 of 7,649 (1.8%) hospital workers were positive. No healthcare worker died. DISCUSSION: AOUP strategy demonstrated effective management of the epidemic thanks to the timely implementation of emergency procedures, a well-coordinated effort shared by all hospital Departments, and their continuous adjustment to the ongoing epidemic. Timely screening of all hospital workers proved to be particularly important to defend the hospital, avoiding epidemic clusters due to unknown positive cases.

Urological Care and COVID-19: Looking Forward.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic represents a worldwide emergency and it is affecting healthcare at every level, including also urological care and especially oncologic patients. Recent epidemiological models show that, without effective treatment or vaccine, there will be a long-lasting phase of cohabitation with the virus. Current experts' opinions recommend performing only non-deferrable uro-oncological surgery and postponing other activities until the end of the emergency, with particular concerns regarding the safety laparoscopy. Veneto Region and Padua Province represent one of the first site of the pandemic spread of the virus outside China, thus we present our experience as a Urological Referral Center in applying a segregated-team work model of organization during the month of March 2020, with a stratified organization of activities, adequate screening and protection for patients and staff were adopted. Compared to the same period of last year even if a 19.5% reduction was experienced in overall surgical activity while maintaining a comparable proportion of oncologic robotic and laparoscopic surgery and guaranteeing care also for high priority non-oncological patients. No cases of COVID-19 infection were reported in staff members nor in patients and the number of surgical complications was comparable to that of last year. Therefore, in our opinion the recommended significant reduction in urological care, including surgical activities, is likely unrealistic in the long period with unknown effects affecting mostly oncological patients. Our experience introducing a segregated-team work model might represent a model for future planning.

Minimally invasive urologic surgery is safe during COVID-19: experience from two high-volume centers in Italy.

Potential risks of COVID-19 spread during minimally invasive procedures caused several concerns among surgeons, despite the lack of high-level evidence. Urological robotic and laparoscopic surgery is performed in elective setting in almost all occasions, thus allowing adequate planning and stratification. Two high-volume urological centers in Italy performed 77 robotic and laparoscopic surgeries during the "lockdown" period and adopted various strategies to prevent contamination. First of all, all patients were tested negative with nasopharyngeal swab before the surgical intervention. Patients and personnel were provided adequate personal protective equipment and intraoperative strategies to prevent smoke formation and pneumoperitoneum spread were adopted. No patients nor staff members tested positive for COVID-19 during a 15-day follow-up period. In conclusion, minimally invasive urologic surgery can be safely performed during the pandemic period with adequate planning. We believe that renouncing the benefits of it would be counterproductive, especially in a scenario of long-lasting cohabitation with the virus.