Dataset Information

Minimally Invasive Oncologic Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery can be Performed Safely on all Weekdays: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Existing literature suggests deteriorating surgical outcome of esophagogastric surgery as the week progresses. However, these studies were conducted in the pre-centralization and pre-minimally invasive era. In addition, they failed to correct for fixed weekdays of esophagogastric cancer surgery among hospitals. This study aimed to describe the impact of weekday of minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal surgery on short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

All patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit who underwent curative minimally invasive esophageal or gastric carcinoma surgery in 2015-2019, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Using multilevel multivariable logistic regression, the impact of weekday of surgery on 14 short-term surgical outcomes was investigated. To correct for interhospital variance in fixed weekday(s) of surgery multilevel analyses was used. Results were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results

This study included 4,102 patients undergoing minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal surgery (2,968 esophageal cancer and 1,134 gastric cancer patients). Weekday of surgery did not impact postoperative complications, severe postoperative complications, surgical/technical complications, medical complications, anastomotic leakage, complicated postoperative course, failure to rescue, surgical radicality, lymph node yield, 30-day/in-hospital mortality, reinterventions, length of ICU stay, 30-day readmission, and textbook outcome after neither esophageal cancer nor gastric cancer surgery.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive esophagogastric surgery can be performed safely on all weekdays with respect to short-term surgical outcomes, which is important information for operation room scheduling.

SUBMITTER: Voeten DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8321995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to assess the safety of surgery for breast cancer in patients with antithrombotic therapy (ATT), including antiplatelet therapy (APT) and anticoagulation therapy (ACT) for thromboembolic risks.MethodsOne hundred ninety-three consecutive patients receiving breast surgery for breast cancer at our institution between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, ATT was regularly used in 50 patients (25.9%). Our perioperative management included maintenance of preoperative aspirin monotherapy for APT and bridging heparin for ACT in patients at high thromboembolic risks and early postoperative reinstitution in all ATT cases. The outcome variables of patients with ATT (ATT group) were compared to those of patients without ATT (non-ATT group), and the significant risk factors for postoperative complications were determined by multivariate analysis.ResultsThis series included 127 mastectomy and 66 breast-conserving surgery. ATT group showed significantly high frequency of history of cerebral infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the ATT group, 32 patients (16.6%) were categorized as high risk for thromboembolism, but there was neither thromboembolic event nor perioperative death in the whole cohort. Surgical blood loss and rates of intraoperative transfusion were identical between the groups. Whereas overall postoperative bleeding complication was more frequently observed in the ATT group compared to the non-ATT group (12.0% vs. 3.5%, p=0.360) in univariate analyses, multivariate analysis showed that neither ATT nor preoperative aspirin continuation affected postoperative bleeding complications.ConclusionEven in patients undergoing ATT, surgery for breast cancer is safely performed without any increase in blood loss or postoperative bleeding, and no thromboembolism was experienced in the series. Our perioperative management of ATT patients is valid during breast surgery, although this patient population is still challenging and should be rigorously managed.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) has profoundly changed standards of care and lowered perioperative morbidity, but its temporal implementation and factors favoring MIS access remain elusive. We aimed to comprehensibly investigate MIS adoption across different surgical procedures over 20 years, identify predictors for MIS amenability and compare propensity score-matched outcomes among MIS and open surgery.MethodsNationwide retrospective analysis of all hospitalizations in Switzerland between 1998 and 2017. Appendectomies (n = 186,929), cholecystectomies (n = 57,788), oncological right (n = 9138) and left hemicolectomies (n = 21,580), rectal resections (n = 13,989) and gastrectomies for carcinoma (n = 6606) were included. Endpoints were assessment of temporal MIS implementation, identification of predictors for MIS access and comparison of propensity score-matched outcomes among MIS and open surgery.ResultsThe rates of MIS increased for all procedures during the study period (p ≤ 0.001). While half of all appendectomies were performed laparoscopically by 2005, minimally invasive oncological colorectal resections reached 50% only by 2016. Multivariate analyses identified older age (p ≤ 0.02, except gastrectomy), higher comorbidities (p ≤ 0.001, except rectal resections), lack of private insurance (p ≤ 0.01) as well as rural residence (p ≤ 0.01) with impaired access to MIS. Rural residence correlated with low income regions (p ≤ 0.001), which themselves were associated with decreased MIS access. Geographical mapping confirmed strong disparities for rural and low-income areas in MIS access. Matched outcome analyses revealed benefits of MIS for length of stay, decreased surgical site infection rates for MIS appendectomies and cholecystectomies and higher mortality for open cholecystectomies. No consistent morbidity or mortality benefit for MIS compared to open colorectal resections was observed.ConclusionUnequal access to MIS exists in disfavor of older and more comorbid patients and those lacking private insurance, living in rural areas, and having lower income. Efforts should be made to ensure equal MIS access regardless of socioeconomic or geographical factors.