Patient and Physician Attitudes Toward Telemedicine in Cancer Clinics Following the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 has infected more than 94 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths. Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk compared with the general population. Telemedicine represents a common strategy to prevent viral spread. We sought to evaluate patient with cancer and physician perceptions of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A 16-question survey was e-mailed to 1,843 active e-mails of patients presenting to one of the six cancer clinics at a comprehensive cancer care center from January 1, 2020, to June 1, 2020. A six-question survey was e-mailed to attending physicians of those clinics. Specialties included Medical Oncology, Hematology-Oncology, Surgical Oncology, Urological Oncology, and Gynecologic Oncology. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-four patients (20.3%) and 14 physicians (66.7%) responded. Most (68.2%) currently prefer in-person visits, and 80.4% prefer in-person visits following pandemic resolution. More than half (52.2%) of patients preferring virtual visits do so because of convenience. Most (63.1%) patients with cancer are comfortable with a complete physical examination. Surgical patients are more likely to prefer a complete examination (P = .0476). Physicians prefer in-person visits (64.2%) and believe that virtual visits maybe or probably do not provide comparable care (64.2%). 71.4% believe that virtual visits help prevent the spread of infectious disease. CONCLUSION: Given preferences for in-person visits, cancer care teams should be prepared to continue providing in-person visits for many of their patients. The discrepancy between patient and provider concern for spread of infectious disease represents an area where patients may benefit from increased education. Providers should feel comfortable performing physical examinations at their own discretion.

Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic Colon Surgery Performed Under Intravenous Sedation and Local Anesthesia Using Microinvasive (<3 mm) Instruments: An Acute and Survival Study on Porcine Model.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of performing laparoscopic intestinal surgery using local anesthesia and intravenous sedation with instruments <3 mm in diameter. METHODS: Porcine model with acute (n = 2) and the survival studies (n = 8): all female pigs, weight (median 36.4 kg, range 33.2-38.4 kg). Surgeries were performed using only intravenous sedation with ketamine-midazolam and local anesthetic infiltration at the sites of trocar insertion, with airway protection. CO2 pneumoperitoneum was maintained using pressure of 3 to 5 mm Hg. Commercially available instruments, sizes <3 mm in diameter were used. Surgical steps were as follows: (a) exploration of all quadrants of the abdomen and pelvis, (b) "running" the entire length of small bowel, (c) dissection of bowel attachments to the peritoneal sidewall, and (d) creating a 2.5 cm enterotomy in the colon and suture repair of this defect. RESULTS: All 10 surgeries were completed successfully. Animals tolerated the procedure well, with no requirement of intubation. There were no decrements in vital signs during pneumoperitoneum or surgery. Despite spontaneous respiration movements, all planned surgical maneuvers were feasible. The median length of operations was 74 minutes (range 56-165 minutes). All survival animals had an uneventful recovery; there were no infectious complications, oral intake and bowel function returned within 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: It appears feasible and safe to perform simple laparoscopic intestinal procedures using instruments <3 mm in diameter and low CO2 insufflation pressure under local anesthesia and intravenous sedation. This methodology holds promise in the development of new approaches to intestinal surgery and disease diagnosis.