Predictors of Quality of Life Six Years after Curative Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Results of the Prospective Multicenter Study.

Background and objectives: Improving early diagnosis and advances in colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment leads to longer survival of these patients. The purpose of this study was to identify the main surgical factors affecting long-term Quality of life (QoL) among colorectal cancer patients after surgery. Materials and Methods: QoL was prospectively evaluated in patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer resection operations in three CRC surgery centers of Lithuania using EORTC generic (QLQC-30) and disease-specific (QLQ-CR29) questionnaires at the time of preoperative admission and 1, 24, and 72 months after surgery. QoL was evaluated among different patient groups, diagnostic and treatment modalities, disease, and postoperative complications. Non-parametric tests and multivariate logistic regression models were used for statistical analysis. Results: Eighty-eight consecutive CRC patients from three institutions were included in the study over a three-month inclusion period, 42 (47.73%) women and 46 (52.27%) men, mean age 64.2 ± 11.5 years. Most tumors were localized in the sigmoid colon and rectum. The largest number of patients had stage III cancer. Twenty-nine patients died-a 6-year survival rate was 67%. 50 of 59 live patients (84.8%) responded to the questionnaire 6 years after their operation. Evaluating changes in quality of life 72 months after surgery with assessments before surgery, both questionnaire responses revealed good long-term CRC surgical treatment results: improved general and functional scale estimates and decreased symptom scale ratings. The multivariate analysis found that age, stoma formation, and rectal cancer were independent risk factors for having worse QoL six years after surgical intervention. Conclusions: Six years after surgery, QoL returns to preoperative levels. Age, stoma formation, adjuvant treatment, and rectal cancer reduce long-term QoL.

The Impact of the Pandemic on Acute Ischaemic Stroke Endovascular Treatment from a Multidisciplinary Perspective: A Nonsystematic Review.

BACKGROUND: At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, reduced admissions for cerebrovascular events were identified, but acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) has remained one of the leading causes of death and disability for many years. The aim of this article is to review current literature data for multidisciplinary team (MDT) coordination, rational management of resources and facilities, ensuring timely medical care for large vessel occlusion (LVO) AIS patients requiring endovascular treatment during the pandemic. METHODS: A detailed literature search was performed in Google Scholar and PubMed databases using these keywords and their combinations: acute ischaemic stroke, emergency, anaesthesia, airway management, mechanical thrombectomy, endovascular treatment, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), COVID-19. Published studies and guidelines from inception to April 2021 were screened. The following nonsystematic review is based on a comprehensive literature search of available data, wherein 59 were chosen for detailed analysis. RESULTS: The pandemic has an impact on every aspect of AIS care, including prethrombectomy, intraprocedural and post-thrombectomy issues. Main challenges include institutional preparedness, increased number of AIS patients with multiorgan involvement, different work coordination principles and considerations about preferred anaesthetic technique. Care of these patients is led by MDT and nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) principles are applied. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate management of AIS patients requiring mechanical thrombectomy during the pandemic is of paramount importance to maximise the benefit of the endovascular procedure. MDT work and familiarity with NORA principles decrease the negative impact of the disease on the clinical outcomes for AIS patients.

Current Recommendations for Airway Management Techniques in COVID-19 Patients without Respiratory Failure Undergoing General Anaesthesia: A Nonsystematic Literature Review.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND: Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first emerged, many articles have been published on airway management for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, there is a lack of clear and concise conceptual framework for working with infected patients without respiratory failure undergoing general anaesthesia compared to noninfected patients. The aim of this article is to review current literature data on new challenges for anaesthesia providers, compare standard airway management techniques protocols with new data, and discuss optimisation potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search was performed in Google Scholar and PubMed databases using these keywords and their combinations: anaesthesia, preoxygenation, airway management, difficult airway, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19. The following nonsystematic review is based on a comprehensive literature search of available data, wherein 41 articles were chosen for detailed analysis. Summarised and analysed data are presented in the article. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 has unique implications for airway management techniques in patients without respiratory failure undergoing general anesthesia. Main differences with the standard practice include: institutional preparedness, team composition principles, necessary skills, equipment, drugs, intubation and extubation strategies. Failed or difficult intubation is managed with predominance of emergency front of neck access (FONA) due to increased aerosol generation. CONCLUSIONS: Airway management techniques in COVID-19 patients without respiratory failure are more challenging than in noninfected patients undergoing general anaesthesia. Safe, accurate and swift actions avoid unnecessary time delay ensuring the best care for patients, and reduce risk of contamination for staff. Appropriate airway strategy, communication, minimisation of time for aerosol generating procedures and ramped-up position aid to achieve these goals. During the pandemic, updated available literature data may change clinical practice as new evidence emerges.