Dataset Information

Predictors of complications in gynaecological oncological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOC-UK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications).

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are limited data on surgical outcomes in gynaecological oncology. We report on predictors of complications in a multicentre prospective study.

Methods

Data on surgical procedures and resulting complications were contemporaneously recorded on consented patients in 10 participating UK gynaecological cancer centres. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture any further complications. Post-operative (Post-op) complications were graded (I-V) in increasing severity using the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade I complications were excluded from the analysis. Univariable and multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of complications using all surgery for intra-operative (Intra-op) and only those with both hospital and patient-reported data for Post-op complications.

Results

Prospective data were available on 2948 major operations undertaken between April 2010 and February 2012. Median age was 62 years, with 35% obese and 20.4% ASA grade ?3. Consultant gynaecological oncologists performed 74.3% of operations. Intra-op complications were reported in 139 of 2948 and Grade II-V Post-op complications in 379 of 1462 surgeries. The predictors of risk were different for Intra-op and Post-op complications. For Intra-op complications, previous abdominal surgery, metabolic/endocrine disorders (excluding diabetes), surgical complexity and final diagnosis were significant in univariable and multivariable regression (P<0.05), with diabetes only in multivariable regression (P=0.006). For Post-op complications, age, comorbidity status, diabetes, surgical approach, duration of surgery, and final diagnosis were significant in both univariable and multivariable regression (P<0.05).

Conclusions

This multicentre prospective audit benchmarks the considerable morbidity associated with gynaecological oncology surgery. There are significant patient and surgical factors that influence this risk.

SUBMITTER: Iyer R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4453652 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictors of complications in gynaecological oncological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOC-UK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications).

Iyer R R Gentry-Maharaj A A Nordin A A Burnell M M Liston R R Manchanda R R Das N N Desai R R Gornall R R Beardmore-Gray A A Nevin J J Hillaby K K Leeson S S Linder A A Lopes A A Meechan D D Mould T T Varkey S S Olaitan A A Rufford B B Ryan A A Shanbhag S S Thackeray A A Wood N N Reynolds K K Menon U U

British journal of cancer 20141223 3

<h4>Background</h4>There are limited data on surgical outcomes in gynaecological oncology. We report on predictors of complications in a multicentre prospective study.<h4>Methods</h4>Data on surgical procedures and resulting complications were contemporaneously recorded on consented patients in 10 participating UK gynaecological cancer centres. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture any further complications. Post-operative (Post-op) complications were graded (I-V) in increasing severit ...[more]

PMID: 25535730

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFast-track surgery (FTS), also known as enhanced recovery after surgery, is a multidisciplinary approach to accelerate recovery, reduce complications, minimise hospital stay without increasing readmission rates, and reduce health care costs, all without compromising patient safety. The advantages of FTS in abdominal surgery most likely extend to gynaecological surgery, but this is an assumption, as FTS in elective gynaecological surgery has not been well studied. No consensus guidelines have been developed for gynaecological oncological surgery although surgeons have attempted to introduce slightly modified FTS programmes for patients undergoing such surgery. To our knowledge, there are no published randomised controlled trials; however, some studies have shown that FTS in gynaecological oncological surgery leads to early hospital discharge with high levels of patient satisfaction. The aim of this study is whether FTS reduces the length of stay in hospital compared to traditional management. The secondary aim is whether FTS is associated with any increase in post-surgical complications compared to traditional management (for both open and laparoscopic surgery).Methods/designThis trial will prospectively compare FTS and traditional management protocols. The primary endpoint is the length of post-operative hospitalisation (days, mean ± standard deviation), defined as the number of days between the date of discharge and the date of surgery. The secondary endpoints are complications in both groups (FTS versus traditional protocol) occurring during the first 3 months post-operatively including infection (wound infection, lung infection, intraperitoneal infection), post-operative nausea and vomiting, ileus, post-operative haemorrhage, post-operative thrombosis, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Enquiry II score.DiscussionThe advantages of FTS most likely extend to gynaecology, although, to our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to compare the post-operative length of hospitalisation after major gynaecological or gynaecological oncological surgery and to analyse patients' post-operative complications. This trial may reveal whether FTS leads to early hospital discharge with few complications after gynaecological surgery.Trial registration numberNCT02687412 . Approval Number: SCCHEC20160001. Date of registration: registered on 23 February 2016.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient-centredness of care during wait time before surgery can be improved. In this study we aimed to assess (1) patients' experiences with and preferences regarding wait time before surgery; (2) the impact of wait time on quality of life (QoL) and (3) which factors influence patients' wait time experience.Design, setting, participantsWe performed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study among women with gynaecological cancer in two tertiary hospitals. We conducted semistructured interviews and identified aspects of QoL and factors that influenced wait time acceptability through thematic analysis. We developed a questionnaire from this thematic analysis which was completed by 97 women. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.ResultsAverage ideal wait time was 3.5 weeks (±1.7 weeks), minimum and maximum acceptable wait times were 2.2 and 5.6 weeks. Many patients scored above the threshold of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for anxiety (48%) or depression (34%), had sleeping problems (56%) or experienced pain (54%). A number of factors were more common in patients who indicated that their wait time had been too long: low education level (OR 7.4, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.0, p=0.007), time to surgery >4 weeks (OR 7.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.4, p=0.002) and experienced sleep disturbance (OR 3.27, 95% CI 0.0 to 3.1, p=0.05). If patients expectation of wait time was >4 weeks (OR 0.20, 95% CI -4.0 to -0.5 p=0008) or if patients experienced pain (OR 0.26, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.3, p=0.03), they less frequently indicated that wait time had been too long.ConclusionTo improve patient-centredness of care, healthcare providers should aim to reduce wait time to 3-4 weeks and ensure that patients are well informed about the length of wait time and are aware of high levels of anxiety, depression and pain during this time. Future studies should evaluate what interventions can improve QoL during wait time.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) versus conventional 'straight stick' laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in women undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for either suspected or proven gynaecological malignancy.DesignMulticentre prospective observational cohort study.SettingPatients aged 16+ undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for gynaecological malignancy at 12 National Health Service (NHS) cancer units and centres in England between August 2017 and February 2020.Participants275 patients recruited with 159 RALS, 73 CLS eligible for analysis.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life measure (EORTC). Secondary outcomes included EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) utility, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), NHS costs using pounds sterling (£) 2018-2019 prices and cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness evaluation compared EQ-5D-5L quality adjusted life years and costs between RALS and CLS.ResultsNo difference identified between RALS and CLS for EORTC, EQ-5D-5L utility and 6MWT. RALS had unadjusted mean cost difference of £556 (95% CI -£314 to £1315) versus CLS and mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference of 0.0024 (95% CI -0.00051 to 0.0057), non-parametric incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £231 667per QALY. For the adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis, RALS dominated CLS with a mean cost difference of -£188 (95% CI -£1321 to £827) and QALY difference of 0.0024 (95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0057).ConclusionsFindings suggest that RALS versus CLS in women undergoing hysterectomy (after adjusting for differences in morbidity) is cost-effective with lower costs and QALYs. Results are highly sensitive to the usage of robotic hardware with higher usage increasing the probability of cost-effectiveness. Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial would be of benefit to decision-makers to provide further evidence on the cost-effectiveness of RALS versus CLS but may not be practical due to surgical preferences of surgeons and the extensive roll out of RALS.

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a risk-stratified intervention strategy and evaluate its effect on reducing surgical complications.DesignA multicentre prospective study with preintervention and postintervention stages: period I (January to June 2015) to develop the intervention strategy and period II (January to June 2016) to evaluate its effectiveness.SettingFour academic/teaching hospitals representing major Chinese administrative and economic regions.ParticipantsAll surgical (elective and emergent) inpatients aged ≥14 years with a minimum hospital stay of 24 hours, who underwent a surgical procedure requiring an anesthesiologist.InterventionsTargeted complications were grouped into three categories (common, specific, serious) according to their incidence pattern, severity and preventability. The corresponding expert consensus-generated interventions, which focused on both regulating medical practices and managing inherent patient-related risks, were implemented in a patient-tailored way via an electronic checklist system.Primary and secondary outcomesPrimary outcomes were (1) in-hospital death/confirmed death within 30 days after discharge and (2) complications during hospitalisation. Secondary outcome was length of stay (LOS).ResultsWe included 51 030 patients in this analysis (eligibility rate 87.7%): 23 413 during period I, 27 617 during period II. Patients' characteristics were comparable during the two periods. After adjustment, the mean number of overall complications per 100 patients decreased from 8.84 to 7.56 (relative change 14.5%; P<0.0001). Specifically, complication rates decreased from 3.96 to 3.65 (7.8%) for common complications (P=0.0677), from 0.50 to 0.36 (28.0%) for specific complications (P=0.0153) and from 3.64 to 2.88 (20.9%) for serious complications (P<0.0001). From period I to period II, there was a decreasing trend for mortality (from 0.64 to 0.53; P=0.1031) and median LOS (by 1 day; P=0.8293), without statistical significance.ConclusionsImplementing a risk-stratified intervention strategy may be a target-sensitive, convenient means to improve surgical outcomes.

Project description:Background80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality.MethodsThis was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494.FindingsBetween April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70-8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39-8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11-3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26-11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08-7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications.InterpretationHigher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

Dataset Information

Predictors of complications in gynaecological oncological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOC-UK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications).

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Predictors of complications in gynaecological oncological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOC-UK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets