Design of a consensus-derived synoptic operative report for lung cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: For lung cancer surgery, a narrative operative report is the standard reporting procedure, whereas a synoptic-style report is increasingly utilized by healthcare professionals in various specialties with great success. A synoptic operative report more succinctly and accurately captures vital information and is rapidly generated with good intraobserver reliability. The objective of this study was to systematically develop a synoptic operative report for lung cancer surgery following a modified Delphi consensus model with the support of the Canadian thoracic surgery community. METHODS: Using online survey software, thoracic surgeons and related physicians were asked to suggest and rate data elements for a synoptic report following the modified Delphi consensus model. The consensus exercise-derived template was forwarded to a small working group, who further refined the definition and priority designation of elements until the working group had reached a satisfactory consensus. RESULTS: In all, 139 physicians were invited to participate in the consensus exercise, with 36.7%, 44.6%, and 19.5% response rates, respectively, in the three rounds. Eighty-nine elements were agreed upon at the conclusion of the exercise, but 141 elements were forwarded to the working group. The working group agreed upon a final data set of 180 independently defined data elements, with 72 mandatory and 108 optional elements for implementation in the final report. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the process involved in developing a multidisciplinary, consensus-based synoptic lung cancer operative report. This novel report style is a quality improvement initiative to improve the capture, dissemination, readability, and potential utility of critical surgical information.

Surface anatomy and surface landmarks for thoracic surgery: Part II.

Surface anatomy is an integral part of a thoracic surgeon's armamentarium to assist with the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of thoracic pathology. As reviewed in this article, the surface landmarks of the lungs, heart, great vessels, and mediastinum are critical for appropriate patient care and should be learned in conjunction with classic anatomy.

Primary chest wall tumors.

The differential diagnosis of chest wall tumors is diverse, including both benign and malignant lesions (primary and malignant), local extension of adjacent disease, and local manifestations of infectious and inflammatory processes. Primary chest wall tumors are best classified by their primary component: soft tissue or bone. Work-up consists of a thorough history, physical examination and imaging to best assess location, size, composition, association with surrounding structures, and evidence of any soft tissue component. Biopsies are often required, especially for soft tissue masses. Treatment depends on histological subtype and location, but may include chemotherapy and radiotherapy in addition to surgical resection.

The impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of prophylactic corticosteroid administration on postoperative nausea, vomiting, pain and complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. DATA SOURCES: We searched 4 bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of articles and textbooks, and contacted experts in the field of anesthesia and hepatobiliary surgery. REVIEW METHODS: We evaluated the methodologic quality of trials and extracted data regarding baseline characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. We pooled results from the studies using a random-effects model, evaluated the degree of heterogeneity, and explored potential explanations for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Seventeen trials met eligibility criteria and provided high quality evidence regarding steroid effectiveness. Irrespective of the co-interventions (other antiemetic medications), dexamethasone reduced the incidence of nausea (RR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), vomiting (RR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.30-0.55), and postoperative nausea or vomiting (RR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.44-0.67) relative to placebo. Dexamethasone also seemed to reduce the severity of postoperative pain (Ratio of Means 0.87, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98), although substantial unexplained heterogeneity was present (I 90.4%). The incidence of headache and dizziness was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic dexamethasone decreases the incidence of nausea and vomiting after LC relative to placebo and may decrease the severity of postoperative pain. Dexamethasone does not increase the incidence of headaches or dizziness. Surgeons should consider administering prophylactic corticosteroids to patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, particularly those at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Blinding of outcomes in trials of orthopaedic trauma: an opportunity to enhance the validity of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Blinding personnel in randomized controlled trials is an important strategy to minimize bias and increase the validity of the results. Trials of surgical interventions present blinding challenges not seen in drug trials. How often orthopaedic trauma investigators undertake blinding, and the frequency with which they could potentially utilize blinding, remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials of orthopaedic trauma published from 1995 to 2004. Two reviewers assessed each trial for eligibility and extracted data regarding its characteristics, outcomes, reporting of blinding, and feasibility of blinding. RESULTS: We included 171 unique randomized controlled trials spanning a variety of body regions and interventions. The most commonly reported outcomes were clinical (e.g., mortality or wound infection; 91% of trials), radiographic (83%), patient-reported (66%), and physiological results (e.g., range of motion; 56%). Less than 10% of the trials in each category reported the use of blinded outcome assessors. This contrasted with blinding that investigators could have accomplished: blinding was feasible with use of simple methods such as independent assessors, concealed incisions, and masked radiographs for 89% of clinical assessors, 89% of radiographic assessors, 96% of physiological assessors, and 35% of patient-reported assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Trials in orthopaedic trauma typically measure many outcomes requiring judgment, but the individuals assessing those outcomes are seldom blinded. Investigators have the opportunity to enhance the validity of future clinical trials by incorporating simple blinding techniques.

The cost of laparoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilatation for esophageal achalasia.

BACKGROUND: The two main treatment options for esophageal achalasia are laparoscopic distal esophageal myotomy (LM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD). Our objective was to compare the costs of these management strategies. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model consisting of two treatment strategies for patients diagnosed with achalasia. Probabilities of events were systematically derived from a literature review, supplemented by expert opinion when necessary. Costs were estimated from the perspective of a third-party payer and society, including both direct and indirect costs. Future costs were discounted at a rate of 5.5% over a time horizon of 5 and 10 years. Uncertainty in the probability estimates was incorporated using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We tested uncertainty in the model by modifying key assumptions and repeating the analysis. RESULTS: From the societal perspective, the expected cost per patient was $10,789 (LM) compared with $5,315 (PD) five years following diagnosis, and $11,804 (LM) compared with $7,717 (PD) after 10 years. The 95% confidence interval of the incremental cost per patient treated with LM was ($5,280, $5,668) after five years, and ($3,863, $4,311) after 10 years. The incremental cost of LM was similar from the third-party payer perspective and in the secondary model analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Initial LM is a more costly management strategy under all clinically plausible scenarios tested in this model. Further research is needed to determine patients' preferences for the two treatment modalities, and society's willingness to bear the incremental cost of LM for those who choose it.

The pylorus: take it or leave it? Systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus standard whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the relative effects of pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and standard Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (SWPD) in patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer. METHODS: We searched seven bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles and textbooks, and we contacted experts in the field of hepatobiliary surgery. We included published and unpublished randomized controlled trials. We evaluated the methodological quality of trials and, in duplicate, extracted data regarding operative, perioperative, and long-term outcomes. We contacted all authors and asked them to provide additional information regarding the trials. We pooled results from the studies by using a random-effects model, evaluated the degree of heterogeneity, and explored potential explanations for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Six trials that included a total of 574 patients met eligibility criteria. In the pooled analysis, PPPD was 72 minutes faster (P < .001, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 53-92), with 284 mL less blood loss (P < .001, 95% CI, 176-391) and .66 fewer units of blood transfused (P = .002, 95% CI, .25-1.16). Other perioperative and long-term outcomes did not statistically differ, although the confidence intervals include important differences. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests PPPD is a faster procedure with less blood loss compared with SWPD. Large absolute differences in other key outcomes are unlikely; excluding relatively small differences will, however, require larger, methodologically stronger trials.