RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with decreased postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy. However, the risks of complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy may be affected by operative time. The objectives of this study are to (1) compare the incidence of postoperative complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy and (2) evaluate the association of postoperative complications on operative approach and operative time. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent an esophagectomy in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Data File was performed from 2016 to 2020. For analysis, minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy were stratified into tertiles of operative time. A bivariate analysis of postoperative complications comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy with open esophagectomy was performed. Multivariable Poisson regression models were estimated evaluating the association of the likelihood of postoperative complications with operative approach and operative time. RESULTS: In total, 8,574 patients who underwent esophagectomy were included: 5,369 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy, and 3,205 patients underwent open esophagectomy. Median operative time was 402 minutes for minimally invasive esophagectomy and 321 minutes for open esophagectomy. The incidence of postoperative complications and 30-day mortality was lower in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group than the open esophagectomy group within the same tertiles of operative time. When we compared patients who underwent short open esophagectomy with those who underwent long minimally invasive esophagectomy, there were no significant differences in complications. CONCLUSION: There is no significant association of postoperative complications for short open esophagectomy compared with long minimally invasive esophagectomy. Patients should be selected for minimally invasive esophagectomy when there is appropriate surgeon experience and hospital resources.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although several risk indices have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of NSTIs, these instruments suffer from varying levels of reproducibility and failure to incorporate key clinical variables in model development. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a clinical risk index score - NECROSIS - for identifying NSTIs in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients being evaluated for severe skin and soft tissue infections. METHODS: We performed a prospective study across 16 sites in the US of adult EGS patients with suspected NSTIs over a 30-month period. Variables analyzed included demographics, admission vitals and labs, physical exam, radiographic, and operative findings. The main outcome measure was the presence of NSTI diagnosed clinically at the time of surgery. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for the presence of NSTI using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the Akaike information criteria. RESULTS: Of 362 patients, 297 (82%) were diagnosed with a NSTI. Overall mortality was 12.3%. Multivariate analysis identified 3 independent predictors for NSTI: systolic blood pressure ≤ 120 mmHg, violaceous skin, and WBC ≥15 (x103/uL). Multivariate modelling demonstrated Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit (p = 0.9) with a c-statistic for the prediction curve of 0.75. Test characteristics of the NECROSIS score were similar between the derivation and validation cohorts. CONCLUSION: NECROSIS is a simple and potentially useful clinical index score for identifying at-risk EGS patients with NSTIs. Future validation studies are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria, Level III.