[Preoperative evaluation of adult patients before elective, non-cardiothoracic surgery : A joint recommendation of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the German Society for Surgery and the German Society for Internal Medicine]. / Präoperative Evaluation erwachsener Patientinnen und Patienten vor elektiven, nicht herz-thoraxchirurgischen Eingriffen : Eine gemeinsame Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Innere Medizin.

The 70 recommendations summarize the current status of preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. Based on the joint publications of the German scientific societies for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine (DGAI), surgery (DGCH), and internal medicine (DGIM), which were first published in 2010 and updated in 2017, as well as the European guideline on preoperative cardiac risk evaluation published in 2022, a comprehensive re-evaluation of the recommendation takes place, taking into account new findings, the current literature, and current guidelines of international professional societies. The revised multidisciplinary recommendation is intended to facilitate a structured and common approach to the preoperative evaluation of patients. The aim is to ensure individualized preparation for the patient prior to surgery and thus to increase patient safety. Taking into account intervention- and patient-specific factors, which are indispensable in the preoperative risk evaluation, the perioperative risk for the patient should be minimized and safety increased. The recommendations for action are summarized under "General Principles (A)," "Advanced Diagnostics (B)," and the "Preoperative Management of Continuous Medication (C)." For the first time, a rating of the individual measures with regard to their clinical relevance has been given in the present recommendation. A joint and transparent agreement is intended to ensure a high level of patient orientation while avoiding unnecessary preliminary examinations, to shorten preoperative examination procedures, and ultimately to save costs. The joint recommendation of DGAI, DGCH and DGIM reflects the current state of knowledge as well as the opinion of experts. The recommendation does not replace the individualized decision between patient and physician about the best preoperative strategy and treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Impact on patients of the coronovirus disease 2019 pandemic and postponement of cochlear implant surgery: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and postponement of elective surgical procedures for profoundly deaf patients awaiting cochlear implantation. METHOD: Open-ended questionnaires were sent to all adult patients awaiting cochlear implantation surgery. Qualitative analysis was performed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Participants described a primarily negative impact on wellbeing from the surgery delay, expressing feelings of isolation or loneliness. Low mood, depression or hopelessness were commonly expressed by elderly participants; frustration and anxiety were described by young adults. Participants described a negative impact on their general daily life, describing difficulties communicating with facemasks and struggles with reliance on telephone communication because of social distancing. Despite these significant psychosocial challenges, only a minority described adaptive coping strategies. DISCUSSION: Profoundly deaf patients may be at greater psychosocial risk because of unique challenges from their hearing disability. Our findings can be used to develop evidence-driven strategies to improve communication, wellbeing and quality of life.

Plastic Surgery amidst the Pandemic: The New York University Experience at the Epicenter of the COVID-19 Crisis.

SUMMARY: The coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic became a global threat in a matter of weeks, with its future implications yet to be defined. New York City was swiftly declared the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States as case numbers grew exponentially in a matter of days, quickly threatening to overwhelm the capacity of the health care system. This burgeoning crisis led practitioners across specialties to adapt and mobilize rapidly. Plastic surgeons and trainees within the New York University Langone Health system faced uncertainty in terms of future practice, in addition to immediate and long-term effects on undergraduate and graduate medical education. The administration remained vigilant and adaptive, enacting departmental policies prioritizing safety and productivity, with early deployment of faculty for clinical support at the front lines. The authors anticipate that this pandemic will have far-reaching effects on the future of plastic surgery education, trends in the pursuit of elective surgical procedures, and considerable consequences for certain research endeavors. Undoubtedly, there will be substantial impact on the physical and mental well-being of health care practitioners across specialties. Coordinated efforts and clear lines of communication between the Department of Plastic Surgery and its faculty and trainees allowed a concerted effort toward the immediate challenge of tempering the spread of coronavirus disease of 2019 and preserving structure and throughput for education and research. Adaptation and creativity have ultimately allowed for early rebooting of in-person clinical and surgical practice. The authors present their coordinated efforts and lessons gleaned from their experience to inform their community's preparedness as this formidable challenge evolves.

Safety and feasibility of resuming bariatric surgery under the cloud of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous bariatric surgical units globally have halted weight loss surgery. Obesity itself has been shown to be a predictor of poor outcome in people infected with the virus. The aim of this study was to report our experience as a high-volume bariatric institution resuming elective weight loss surgery safely amidst emergency admissions of COVID-19-positive patients. METHODS: A standard operating procedure based on national guidance and altered to accommodate local considerations was initiated across the hospital. Data were collected prospectively for 50 consecutive patients undergoing bariatric surgery following recommencement of elective surgery after the first national lockdown in the UK. RESULTS: Between 28 June and 5 August 2020, a total of 50 patients underwent bariatric surgery of whom 94% were female. Median age was 41 years and median body mass index was 43.8 (interquartile range 40.0-48.8)kg/m2. Half of the patients (n = 25/50) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and half underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Of these 50 patients, 9 (18%) had revisional bariatric surgery. Overall median length of hospital stay was 1 day, with 96% of the study population being discharged within 24h of surgery. The overall rate of readmission was 6% and one patient (2%) returned to theatre with an obstruction proximal to jejuno-jejunal anastomosis. None of the patients exhibited symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: With appropriately implemented measures and precautions, resumption of bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic appears feasible and safe with no increased risk to patients.

Safety of emergency, elective and day case operating during the winter period at East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust: lessons from the outcomes of 4,254 surgical patients from the first COVID-19 wave.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on perioperative outcomes of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform continued operating into the winter period. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the rate of 30-day COVID-19 transmission and mortality of all surgical patients in the three hospitals in our trust in the East of England during the first lockdown in March 2020. All patients who underwent a swab were swabbed on or 24 hours prior to admission. RESULTS: There were 4,254 patients and an overall 30-day mortality of 0.99%. The excess surgical mortality in our region was 0.29%. There were 39 patients who were COVID-19 positive within 30 days of admission, 12 of whom died. All 12 were emergency admissions with a length of stay longer than 24 hours. There were three deaths among those who underwent day case surgery, one of whom was COVID-19 negative, and the other two were not swabbed but not suspected to have COVID-19. There were two COVID-19 positive elective cases and none in day case elective or emergency surgery. There were no COVID-19 positive deaths in elective or day case surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of COVID-19 transmission and mortality in elective and day case operations. Our data have allowed us to guide patients in the consent process and provided the evidence base to restart elective and day case operating with precautions and regular review. A number of regions will be similarly affected and should perform a review of their data for the winter period and beyond.

Modelling the impact of changes to abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and treatment services in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme (NAAASP) in England screens 65-year-old men. The programme monitors those with an aneurysm, and early intervention for large aneurysms reduces ruptures and AAA-related mortality. AAA screening services have been disrupted following COVID-19 but it is not known how this may impact AAA-related mortality, or where efforts should be focussed as services resume. METHODS: We repurposed a previously validated discrete event simulation model to investigate the impact of COVID-19-related service disruption on key outcomes. This model was used to explore the impact of delayed invitation and reduced attendance in men invited to screening. Additionally, we investigated the impact of temporarily suspending scans, increasing the threshold for elective surgery to 7cm and increasing drop-out in the AAA cohort under surveillance, using data from NAAASP to inform the population. FINDINGS: Delaying invitation to primary screening up to two years had little impact on key outcomes whereas a 10% reduction in attendance could lead to a 2% lifetime increase in AAA-related deaths. In surveillance patients, a 1-year suspension of surveillance or increase in the elective threshold resulted in a 0.4% increase in excess AAA-related deaths (8% in those 5-5.4cm at the start). Longer suspensions or a doubling of drop-out from surveillance would have a pronounced impact on outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Efforts should be directed towards encouraging men to attend AAA screening service appointments post-COVID-19. Those with AAAs on surveillance should be prioritised as the screening programme resumes, as changes to these services beyond one year are likely to have a larger impact on surgical burden and AAA-related mortality.

Using performance frontiers to differentiate elective and capacity-based surgical services.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery (ACS) model of care delivery has many benefits. However, since the ACS surgeon has limited control over the volume, timing, and complexity of cases, traditional metrics of operating room (OR) efficiency almost always measure ACS service as "inefficient." The current study examines an alternative method-performance fronts-of evaluating changes in efficiency and tests the following hypotheses: (1) in an institution with a robust ACS service, performance front methodology is superior to traditional metrics in evaluating OR throughput/efficiency, and (2) introduction of an ACS service with block time allocation will improve OR throughput/efficiency. METHODS: Operating room metrics 1-year pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation were collected. Overall OR efficiency was calculated by mean case volumes for the entire OR and ACS and general surgery (GS) services individually. Detailed analysis of these two specific services was performed by gathering median monthly minutes-in block, out of block, after hours, and opportunity unused. The two services were examined using a traditional measure of efficiency and the "fronts" method. Services were compared with each other and also pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation. RESULTS: Overall OR case volumes increased by 5% (999 ± 50 to 1,043 ± 46: p < 0.05) with almost all of the increase coming through ACS (27 ± 4 to 68 ± 16: p < 0.05). By traditional metrics, ACS had significantly worse median efficiency versus GS in both periods: pre (0.67 [0.66-0.71] vs. 0.80 [0.78-0.81]) and post (0.75 [0.53-0.77] vs. 0.83 [0.84-0.85]) (p < 0.05). As compared with the pre, GS efficiency improved significantly in post (p < 0.05), but ACS efficiency remained unchanged (p > 0.05). The alternative fronts chart demonstrated the more accurate picture with improved efficiency observed for GS, ACS, and combined. CONCLUSION: In an institution with a busy ACS service, the alternative fronts methodology offers a more accurate evaluation of OR efficiency. The provision of an OR for the ACS service improves overall throughput/efficiency.

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.

Rhinosurgery during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic: International Consensus Conference Statement on Preliminary Perioperative Safety Measures.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has widely affected rhinosurgery, given the high risk of contagion and the elective nature of the aesthetic procedure, generating many questions on how to ensure safety. The Science and Research Committee of the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe aimed at preparing consensus recommendations on safe rhinosurgery in general during the COVID-19 pandemic by appointing an international panel of experts also including delegates of The Rhinoplasty Society. METHODS: A Zoom meeting was performed with a panel of 14 international leading experts in rhinosurgery. During 3.5 hours, four categories of questions on preoperative safety measures in private practice and outpatient clinics, patient assessment before and during surgery, and legal issues were presented by four chairs and discussed by the expert group. Afterward, the panelists were requested to express an online, electronic vote on each category and question. The panel's recommendations were based on current evidence and expert opinions. The resulting report was circulated in an iterative open e-mail process until consensus was obtained. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained in several important points on how to safely restart performing rhinosurgery in general. Preliminary recommendations with different levels of agreement were prepared and condensed in a bundle of safety measures. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the panel's recommendations may improve safety of rhinoplasty by avoiding operating on nondetected COVID-19 patients and minimizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus spread in outpatient clinics and operating rooms.

Surgical Infection Society Guidance for Restoration of Surgical Services during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic.

Background: As the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues globally, high numbers of new infections are developing nationwide, particularly in the U.S. Midwest and along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The need to accommodate growing numbers of hospitalized patients has led facilities in affected areas to suspend anew or curtail normal hospital activities, including elective surgery, even as earlier-affected areas normalized surgical services. Backlogged surgical cases now number in the tens of millions globally. Facilities will be hard-pressed to address these backlogs, even absent the recrudescence of COVID-19. This document provides guidance for the safe and effective resumption of surgical services as circumstances permit. Methods: Review and synthesis of pertinent international peer-reviewed literature, with integration of expert opinion. Results: The "second-wave" of serious infections is placing the healthcare system under renewed stress. Surgical teams likely will encounter persons harboring the virus, whether symptomatic or not. Continued vigilance and protection of patients and staff remain paramount. Reviewed are the impact of COVID-19 on the surgical workforce, considerations for operating on a COVID-19 patient and the outcomes of such operations, the size and nature of the surgical backlog, and the logistics of resumption, including organizational considerations, patient and staff safety, preparation of the surgical candidate, and the role of enhanced recovery programs to reduce morbidity, length of stay, and cost by rational, equitable resource utilization. Conclusions: Resumption of surgical services requires institutional commitment (including teams of surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, dieticians, and administrators). Structured protocols and equitable implementation programs, and iterative audit, planning, and integration will improve outcomes, enhance safety, preserve resources, and reduce cost, all of which will contribute to safe and successful reduction of the surgical backlog.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic first wave and public policy on elective and emergency surgery provision in Southern Queensland.

BACKGROUND: Several public health initiatives in Australia were implemented in March 2020 to contain the spread of COVID-19. The effect of these initiatives on surgical provision is unknown. The primary objective was to determine the effect of public health policies and surgical society guidelines implemented during the pandemic on elective and emergency caseload of surgical specialities operating within South East Queensland. METHODS: This observational study utilized non re-identifiable electronic data to quantify the caseload of surgical specialities across five secondary and tertiary referral hospitals in South East Queensland prior to and during the implementation of such initiatives. All patients undergoing a surgical procedure between 1 March and 24 April 2019 and the same period in 2020 were included. Participants' demographic and clinical information, such as age, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgical date and location, surgical subspecialty and procedure name, was included. RESULTS: During the 2020 time period, there were 2991 elective cases compared to 4422 surgeries occurring in the same period in 2019 (32.4% reduction). Meanwhile, 2082 emergency surgeries were performed in the 2020 period compared to 2362 in 2019 (12.0% decrease). Ophthalmology and dental/ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial surgery experienced the largest reduction in elective surgeries, whereas emergency caseload increased for vascular and cardiothoracic services, and only slightly decreased for plastics and urology. CONCLUSION: The public health initiatives and guidance implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced surgical specialties' elective caseload. However, emergency caseload was not affected to the same extent. This insight helps to guide resource allocation in future waves of the pandemic.