Quality Assessment of Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Patient Information on the Internet Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients Tool.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the quality of patient information material regarding elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair on the internet using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (MEQIP) tool. METHODS: A qualitative assessment of internet based patient information was performed. The 12 most used search terms relating to AAA repair were identified using Google Trends, with the first 10 pages of websites retrieved for each term searched. Duplicates were removed, and information for patients undergoing elective AAA were selected. Further exclusion criteria were marketing material, academic journals, videos, and non-English language sites. The remaining websites were then MEQIP scored independently by two reviewers, producing a final score by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 1 297 websites were identified, with 235 (18.1%) eligible for analysis. The median MEQIP score was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] 14, 21) out of a possible 36. The highest score was 33. The 99th percentile MEQIP scoring websites scored > 27, with four of these six sites representing online copies of hospital patient information leaflets, however hospital sites overall had lower median MEQIP scores than most other institution types. MEQIP subdomain median scores were: content, 8 (IQR 6, 11); identification, 3 (IQR 1, 3); and structure, 7 (IQR 6, 9). Of the analysed websites, 77.9% originated from the USA (median score 17) and 12.8% originated in the UK (median score 22). Search engine ranking was related to website institution type but had no correlation with MEQIP. CONCLUSION: When assessed by the MEQIP tool, most websites regarding elective AAA repair are of questionable quality. This is in keeping with studies in other surgical and medical fields. Search engine ranking is not a reliable measure of quality of patient information material regarding elective AAA repair. Health practitioners should be aware of this issue as well as the whereabouts of high quality material to which patients can be directed.

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.

Association of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model With Disparities in the Use of Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform to improve quality and spending for beneficiaries who need total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), yet it does not account for sociodemographic risk factors such as race/ethnicity and income. Results of this study could be the basis for a Medicare payment reform that addresses inequities in joint replacement care. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the use of elective THR and TKR among older Medicare beneficiaries after accounting for the population of patients who were at risk or eligible for these surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the 2013 to 2017 national Medicare data and multivariable logistic regressions with triple-differences estimation. Medicare beneficiaries who were aged 65 to 99 years, entitled to Medicare, alive at the end of the calendar year, and residing either in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in the CJR model or in the 104 control MSAs were identified. A subset of Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis underwent THR or TKR. Data were analyzed from March to December 2020. Exposures: Implementation of the CJR model in 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were separate binary indicators for whether a beneficiary underwent THR or TKR. Key independent variables were MSA treatment status, pre- or post-CJR model implementation phase, combination of race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic beneficiaries) and dual eligibility, and their interactions. Logistic regression models were used to control for patient characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends. Results: The 2013 cohort included 4 447 205 Medicare beneficiaries, of which 2 025 357 (45.5%) resided in MSAs with the CJR model. The cohort's mean (SD) age was 77.18 (7.95) years, and it was composed of 2 951 140 female (66.4%), 3 928 432 non-Hispanic White (88.3%), and 657 073 dually eligible (14.8%) beneficiaries. Before the CJR model implementation, rates were highest among non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries at 1.25% (95% CI, 1.24%-1.26%) for THR use and 2.28% (95% CI, 2.26%-2.29%) for TKR use in MSAs with CJR model. Compared with MSAs without the CJR model and the analogous race/ethnicity and dual-eligibility group, the CJR model was associated with a 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.15; P < .001) percentage-point increase in TKR use for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.11 (95% CI, 0.004-0.21; P = .04) percentage-point increase for non-Hispanic White dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.15 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.01; P = .04) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, and a 0.18 (95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = .03) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries. These CJR model-associated changes in TKR use were 0.25 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.10; P = .001) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries and 0.27 (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.10; P = .002) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries compared with the model-associated changes for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. No association was found between the CJR model and a widening of the THR use gap among race/ethnicity and dual eligibility groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicate that the CJR model was associated with a modest increase in the already substantial difference in TKR use among non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White beneficiaries; no difference was found for THR. These findings support the widespread concern that payment reform has the potential to exacerbate disparities in access to joint replacement care.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. CONCLUSION: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.

Development and Validation of Cervical Prediction Models for Patient-Reported Outcomes at 1 Year After Cervical Spine Surgery for Radiculopathy and Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate prediction models for 12-month patient-reported outcomes of disability, pain, and myelopathy in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Predictive models have the potential to be utilized preoperatively to set expectations, adjust modifiable characteristics, and provide a patient-centered model of care. METHODS: This study was conducted using data from the cervical module of the Quality Outcomes Database. The outcomes of interest were disability (Neck Disability Index:), pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for myelopathy. Multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression models were developed for patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical covariates as well as baseline patient-reported outcomes scores were included in all models. The models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred eighty-eight patients underwent surgery for radiculopathy and 2641 patients for myelopathy. The most important predictor of poor postoperative outcomes at 12-months was the baseline Neck Disability Index score for patients with radiculopathy and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for patients with myelopathy. In addition, symptom duration, workers' compensation, age, employment, and ambulatory and smoking status had a statistically significant impact on all outcomes (P < 0.001). Clinical and surgical variables contributed very little to predictive models, with posterior approach being associated with higher odds of having worse 12-month outcome scores in both the radiculopathy and myelopathy cohorts (P < 0.001). The full models overall discriminative performance ranged from 0.654 to 0.725. CONCLUSIONS: These predictive models provide individualized risk-adjusted estimates of 12-month disability, pain, and myelopathy outcomes for patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative cervical disease. Predictive models have the potential to be used as a shared decision-making tool for evidence-based preoperative counselling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Surviving the COVID-19 Pandemic: Surge Capacity Planning for Nonemergent Surgery.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has confronted the U.S. health care system with unprecedented challenges amidst a tenuous economic environment. As inpatient hospitals across the country prepare for an overwhelming influx of highly contagious COVID-19 cases, many nonemergent procedures have been cancelled or indefinitely postponed without guidance regarding eventual safe accommodation of these procedures in the future. Given the potentially prolonged impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care use, it is imperative for plastic surgeons to collaborate with other medical and surgical specialties to develop surge capacity protocols that allow continuation of safe, high-quality, nonemergent procedures. The purpose of this article is to provide necessary and timely public health information relevant to plastic surgery and also share a conceptual framework to guide surge capacity protocols for nonemergent surgery.

Estimating the Epidemiological and Economic Impact of Implementing Preoperative Anaemia Measures in the German Healthcare System: The Health Economic Footprint of Patient Blood Management.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to quantify the potential epidemiological and health economic benefits of implementing preoperative anaemia measures (PAMs) in clinical practice in the German healthcare system. METHODS: An evidence-based health economic model was developed to assess the possible impact of implementing PAMs, the first pillar of patient blood management (PBM), in a German population. The analysis of two risk factors-iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA) and receipt of a red blood cell concentrate (RBC) transfusion during elective surgery-allowed the estimation of relative risks (RRs), average cost per patient, average length of hospital stay, and avoided hospital deaths after the implementation of PAMs. RESULTS: A total of 4,591,060 patients who had undergone elective surgery during 2015 were identified, of which 29,170 (0.64%) were diagnosed with preoperative IDA. These patients had an increased RR of receiving a RBC transfusion during surgery (RR 5.031; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.928, 5.136) and increased mortality risk (RR 3.630; 95% CI 3.401, 3.874) versus patients without IDA. Patients who received a RBC transfusion during surgery had a 24.6-times higher risk of death than those who did not (RR 24.593; 95% CI 24.121, 25.075). Average cost of treatment was €7883 in patients with IDA, €21,744 in patients with IDA and RBC transfusion, and €4560 in patients without risk factors. The model identified 29,714 patients (0.65%) who had received a RBC transfusion and who potentially had IDA but remained undiagnosed before surgery. Hypothetical implementation of PAMs would have resulted in an estimated annual net hospital direct cost saving of €1029 million (1.58%) of total hospital direct costs of the German healthcare system and 3036 hospital deaths (0.07%) avoided. CONCLUSIONS: This model estimated the impact of implementing PAMs for patients with IDA undergoing elective surgery. A significant number of deaths, costly treatments, and hospital days could have been avoided by the introduction of PAMs in routine clinical practice in Germany.

Plastic Surgery and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of Clinical Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: A novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was first reported in December 2019 in China and was soon declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Many elective and nonessential surgeries were postponed worldwide in an effort to minimize spread of disease, as well as to conserve resources. Our goal with this article is to review current practice guidelines in setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on available data and literature. METHODS: Websites pertaining to surgical and medical societies, and government agencies were reviewed, along with recently published literature to identify recommendations related to COVID-19 and plastic surgery procedures. RESULTS: Clinical practice modifications are recommended during the pandemic in outpatient and perioperative settings. Use of personal protective equipment is critical for aerosol-generating procedures, such as surgery in the head and neck area. Care for trauma and malignancy should continue during the pandemic; however, definitive reconstruction could be delayed for select cases. Specific recommendations were made for surgical treatment of cancer, trauma, and semiurgent reconstructive procedures based on available data and literature. CONCLUSIONS: The risk and benefit of each reconstructive procedure should be carefully analyzed in relation to necessary patient care, minimized COVID-19 spread, protection of health care personnel, and utilization of resources. Recommendations in this article should be taken in the context of each institute's resources and prevalance of COVID-19 in the region. It should be emphasized that the guidelines provided are a snapshot of current practices and are subject to change as the pandemic continues to evolve.

Recommendations for the organization of electrophysiology and cardiac pacing services during the COVID-19 pandemic : Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) in collaboration with: Colombian College Of Electrophysiology, Argentinian Society of Cardiac Electrophysiology (SADEC), Brazilian Society Of Cardiac Arrhythmias (SOBRAC), Mexican Society Of Cardiac Electrophysiology (SOMEEC).

COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving public health emergency that has largely impacted the provision of healthcare services around the world. The challenge for electrophysiology teams is double; on one side preventing disease spread by limiting all nonessential face-to-face interactions, but at the same time ensuring continued care for patients who need it. These guidelines contain recommendations regarding triaging in order to define what procedures, device checks and clinic visits can be postponed during the pandemic. We also discuss best practices to protect patients and healthcare workers and provide guidance for the management of COVID-19 patients with arrhythmic conditions.

A Review of State Guidelines for Elective Orthopaedic Procedures During the COVID-19 Outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in widespread cancellation of elective orthopaedic procedures. The guidance coming from multiple sources frequently has been difficult to assimilate as well as dynamic, with constantly changing standards. We seek to communicate the current guidelines published by each state, to discuss the impact of these guidelines on orthopaedic surgery, and to provide the general framework used to determine which procedures have been postponed at our institution. METHODS: An internet search was used to identify published state guidelines regarding the cancellation of elective procedures, with a publication cutoff of March 24, 2020, 5:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time. Data collected included the number of states providing guidance to cancel elective procedures and which states provided specific guidance in determining which procedures should continue being performed as well as to orthopaedic-specific guidance. RESULTS: Thirty states published guidance regarding the discontinuation of elective procedures, and 16 states provided a definition of "elective" procedures or specific guidance for determining which procedures should continue to be performed. Only 5 states provided guidelines specifically mentioning orthopaedic surgery; of those, 4 states explicitly allowed for trauma-related procedures and 4 states provided guidance against performing arthroplasty. Ten states provided guidelines allowing for the continuation of oncological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Few states have published guidelines specific to orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 outbreak, leaving hospital systems and surgeons with the responsibility of balancing the benefits of surgery with the risks to public health.

Editor's Choice - Assessment of Correlation Between Mean Size of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm at Time of Intact Repair Against Repair and Rupture Rate in Nine Countries.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse the mean abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter for repair in nine countries, and to determine variation in mean AAA diameter for elective AAA repair and its relationship to rupture AAA repair rates and aneurysm related mortality in corresponding populations. METHODS: Data on intact (iAAA) and ruptured infrarenal AAA (rAAA) repair for the years 2010-2012 were collected from Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the USA. The rate of iAAA repair and rAAA per 100 000 inhabitants above 59 years old, mean AAA diameter for iAAA repair and rAAA repair, and the national rates of rAAA were assessed. National cause of death statistics were used to estimate aneurysm related mortality. Direct standardisation methods were applied to the national mortality data. Logistic regression and analysis of variance model adjustments were made for age groups, sex, and year. RESULTS: There was a variation in the mean diameter of iAAA repair (n = 34 566; range Germany = 57 mm, Denmark = 68 mm). The standardised iAAA repair rate per 100000 inhabitants varied from 10.4 (Hungary) to 66.5 (Norway), p<.01, and the standardised rAAA repair rate per 100 000 from 5.8 (USA) to 16.9 (England), p<.01. Overall, there was no significant correlation between mean diameter of iAAA repair and standardised iAAA rate (r2 = 0.04, p = .3). There was no significant correlation between rAAA repair rate (n = 12 628) with mean diameter of iAAA repair (r2 = 0.2, p = .1). CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations from learned society guidelines, data indicate variations in mean diameter for AAA repair. There was no significant correlation between mean diameter of AAA repair and rates of iAAA repair and rAAA repair. These analyses are subject to differences in disease prevalence, uncertainties in rupture rates, validations of vascular registries, causes of death and registrations.