Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative morbidity and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2010 to 2016 was identified. Patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer were included and were grouped by ARH vs. RRH. Tumor characteristics, perioperative complications, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups. RESULTS: 105 patients were identified; 56 underwent ARH and 49 underwent RRH. Those who had ARH were more likely to have lesions that were ≥2 cm (62% vs. 39%, p = 0.02) and that were higher grade (p = 0.048). Other tumor characteristics were similar between groups. There was no difference in perioperative complication rates between groups. Additionally, there were no differences in recurrence risk (RR) (14% vs. 24%, p = 0.22), progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.28), or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.16). However, in those with tumors ≥2 cm there was a higher risk of recurrence in the overall cohort (30% vs. 8%, p = 0.006), and a shorter PFS in the RRH group (HR 0.31, p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis patients that underwent ARH or had tumors < 2 cm had a lower likelihood of recurrence (HR 0.38, p = 0.04; HR 0.175, p = 0.002) and death (HR 0.21, p = 0.029; HR 0.15, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity was similar between those undergoing ARH vs. RRH for IB1 cervical cancer. Patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm undergoing RRH had a shorter PFS compared to ARH. On multivariate analysis, RRH and tumor size ≥ 2 cm were independently associated with recurrence and death in this population.

Validity of the Braden Scale in grading pressure ulcers in trauma and burn patients.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a costly hospital-acquired condition in terms of clinical outcome and expense. The Braden Scale was developed in 1987 as a risk scoring method for pressure ulcers and uses six different risk factors: sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, nutrition, and friction and shear. A score of ≤18 is considered high risk. To date, research on the utility of the Braden Scale has focused on general medicine and nontrauma/burn surgery patients. We hypothesize that the Braden Scale does not accurately discriminate who will get a pressure ulcer among trauma and burn patients. METHODS: We collected data from medical records regarding documented Braden scores and presence of pressure ulcers regardless of staging. Patients with ulcers present on admission were excluded from analysis. For each patient, the lowest Braden score documented before the occurrence of the pressure ulcer was determined. A logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals for the association between pressure ulcer likelihood and lowest Braden Scale measurement. To determine the discriminatory ability of the Braden Scale on pressure ulcer risk, four measures of performance (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio) were calculated for four nonmutually exclusive groups: a Braden Scale measurement ≤18, ≤14, ≤12, and ≤9. RESULTS: From 2011 through 2014, a total of 2660 patients were admitted to the trauma/burn intensive care unit. Of these patients, 63 (2.3%) subsequently developed a pressure ulcer. A Braden Scale of ≤18 as the threshold for being at-risk of pressure ulcer had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 6%, whereas a Braden Scale of ≤9 had a sensitivity of 28.6% and a specificity of 90%. For all Braden Scale measurements, the positive likelihood ratio never reached the value of 10 that suggests high likelihood of an ulcer. CONCLUSIONS: The Braden scale has mediocre discriminatory ability among the trauma/burn population. In addition, the low positive likelihood ratio suggests that the Braden scale may not be a useful clinical tool as it may result in unnecessary expenditure of time and personnel resources in preventing pressure ulcer formation.