Use of failure-to-rescue after emergency surgery as a dynamic indicator of hospital resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical failure-to-rescue (FTR, death rate following complications) is a reliable cross-sectional quality of care marker, but has not been evaluated dynamically. We aimed to study changes in FTR following emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Matched cohort study including all COVID-19-non-infected adult patients undergoing emergency general surgery in 25 Spanish hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic peak (March-April 2020), non-peak (May-June 2020), and 2019 control periods. A propensity score-matched comparative analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model, in which period was regressed on observed baseline characteristics. Subsequently, a mixed effects logistic regression model was constructed for each variable of interest. Main variable was FTR. Secondary variables were post-operative complications, readmissions, reinterventions, and length of stay. RESULTS: 5003 patients were included (948, 1108, and 2947 in the pandemic peak, non-peak, and control periods), with comparable clinical characteristics, prognostic scores, complications, reintervention, rehospitalization rates, and length of stay across periods. FTR was greater during the pandemic peak than during non-peak and pre-pandemic periods (22.5% vs. 17.2% and 12.7%), being this difference confirmed in adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.27-3.66). There was sensible inter-hospital variability in FTR changes during the pandemic peak (median FTR change +8.77%, IQR 0-29.17%) not observed during the pandemic non-peak period (median FTR change 0%, IQR -6.01-6.72%). Greater FTR increase was associated with higher COVID-19 incidence (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.31-4.16) and some hospital characteristics, including tertiary level (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.27-8.00), medium-volume (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.14-7.34), and high basal-adjusted complication risk (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-4.72). CONCLUSION: FTR following emergency surgery experienced a heterogeneous increase during different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting it to behave as an indicator of hospital resilience. FTR monitoring could facilitate identification of centres in special needs during ongoing health care challenges.

P-POSSUM as mortality predictor in COVID-19-infected patients submitted to emergency digestive surgery. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection is associated with a higher mortality rate in surgical patients, but surgical risk scores have not been validated in the emergency setting. We aimed to study the capacity for postoperative mortality prediction of the P-POSSUM score in COVID-19-positive patients submitted to emergency general and digestive surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing emergency general and digestive surgery from March to June 2020, and from March to June 2019 in 25 Spanish hospitals were included in a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME: 30-day mortality. P-POSSUM discrimination was quantified by the area under the curve (AUC) of ROC curves; calibration was assessed by linear regression slope (ß estimator); and sensitivity and specificity were expressed as percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: 4988 patients were included: 177 COVID-19-positive; 2011 intra-pandemic COVID-19-negative; and 2800 pre-pandemic. COVID-19-positive patients were older, with higher surgical risk, more advanced pathologies, and higher P-POSSUM values (1.79% vs. 1.09%, p < 0.001, in both the COVID-19-negative and control cohort). 30-day mortality in the COVID-19-positive, intra-pandemic COVID-19-negative and pre-pandemic cohorts were: 12.9%, 4.6%, and 3.2%. The P-POSSUM predictive values in the three cohorts were, respectively: AUC 0.88 (95% CI 0.81-0.95), 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.92), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93); ß value 0.97 (95% CI 0.74-1.2), 0.99 (95% CI 0.82-1.16), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82); sensitivity 83% (95% CI 61-95), 91% (95% CI 84-96), and 89% (95% CI 80-94); and specificity 81% (95% CI 74-87), 76% (95% CI 74-78), and 80% (95% CI 79-82). CONCLUSION: The P-POSSUM score showed a good predictive capacity for postoperative mortality in COVID-19-positive patients submitted to emergency general and digestive surgery.

Surgical electronic logbook: A step forward.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical electronic logbook (surgical e-logbook) aims to: simplify registration of the training activities of surgical residents, and to obtain reliable and detailed reports about these activities for resident evaluation. METHODS: The surgical e-logbook is a unique and shared database. Residents prospectively record their activities in 3 areas: surgical, scientific and teaching. We can access activity reports that are constantly updated. RESULTS: Study period using the surgical e-logbook: Between June 2011 and May 2013. Number of surgeries reported: 4,255. Number of surgical procedures reported: 11,907. Number of surgeries per resident per year reported: 250. Number of surgical procedures per resident per year reported: 700. Surgical activity as a primary surgeon during the first year of residency is primarily in emergency surgery (68,01%) and by laparotomy (97,73%), while during the fifth year of residency 51,27% is performed in elective surgery and laparoscopy is used in 23,10% of cases. During this period, residents participated in a total of 11 scientific publications, 75 conference presentations and 69 continuing education activities. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical e-logbook is a useful tool that simplifies the recording and analysis of data about surgical and scientific activities of the residents. It is a step forward in the evaluation of the training of surgical residents, however, is only an intermediate step towards the development of a larger Spanish registry.

Transanal endoscopic surgery in rectal cancer.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for rectal cancer, but complications are frequent and rates of morbidity, mortality and genitourinary alterations are high. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows preservation of the anal sphincters and, via its vision system through a rectoscope, allows access to rectal tumors located as far as 20 cm from the anal verge. The capacity of local surgery to cure rectal cancer depends on the risk of lymph node invasion. This means that correct preoperative staging of the rectal tumor is necessary. Currently, local surgery is indicated for rectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas invading the submucosa, but not beyond (T1). Here we describe the standard technique for TEM, the different types of equipment used, and the technical limitations of this approach. TEM to remove rectal adenoma should be performed in the same way as if the lesion were an adenocarcinoma, due to the high percentage of infiltrating adenocarcinomas in these lesions. In spite of the generally good results with T1, some authors have published surprisingly high recurrence rates; this is due to the existence of two types of lesions, tumors with good and poor prognosis, divided according to histological and surgical factors. The standard treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma T2N0M0 is TME without adjuvant therapy. In this type of adenocarcinoma, local surgery obtains the best results when complete pathological response has been achieved with previous chemoradiotherapy. The results with chemoradiotherapy and TEM are encouraging, but the scientific evidence remains limited at present.

Validación de un modelo de riesgo de evisceración / Validation of abdominal wound dehiscence's risk model

INTRODUCCIÓN: Nuestro trabajo pretende valorar la utilidad del modelo de riesgo de evisceración desarrollado por van Ramshorst et al., y una modificación del mismo, para predecir el riesgo de evisceración entre pacientes operados por laparotomía media. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, longitudinal y retrospectivo. Muestra: pacientes operados por laparotomía media en la Corporación Sanitaria y Universitaria Parc Taulí (Barcelona), entre el 1 de enero y el 30 de junio del 2010. Variable dependiente: evisceración. Variables independientes principales: los scores de riesgo global y preoperatorio (excluye variables postoperatorias), y las probabilidades de evisceración global y preoperatoria. RESULTADOS: Muestra: 176 pacientes. Eviscerados: 15 (8,5%). La media del score global de riesgo del grupo Evisceración: 4,97 (IC95%: 4,15-5,79) es mayor que la del grupo No evisceración: 3,41 (IC95%: 3,20-3,62), siendo esta diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p < 0,001). La media del score preoperatorio de riesgo del grupo Evisceración: 3,27 (IC95%: 2,69-3,84) es mayor que la del grupo No evisceración: 2,77 (IC95%: 2,64-2,89), siendo esta diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p < 0,05). El score global de riesgo (área bajo la curva ROC: 0,79) tiene mayor capacidad predictiva que el score preoperatorio de riesgo (área bajo la curva ROC: 0,64). DISCUSIÓN: La utilidad del modelo de riesgo desarrollado por van Ramshorst et al. para predecir el riesgo de evisceración, durante el preopeatorio, entre pacientes operados por laparotomía media es limitada. La utilización del score preoperatorio requiere ajustes para mejorar su rendimiento pronóstico

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine the usefulness of the risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al., and a modification of the same, to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational longitudinal retrospective study. Sample: Patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions in the General and Digestive Surgery Department of the Sabadell's Hospital-Parc Taulí's Health and University Corporation-Barcelona, between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010. Dependent variable: Abdominal wound dehiscence. Independent variables: Global risk score, preoperative risk score (postoperative variables were excluded), global and preoperative probabilities of developing abdominal wound dehiscence. RESULTS: Sample: 176 patients. Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: 15 (8.5%). The global risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 4.97; IC 95%: 4.15-5.79) was better than the global risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.41; IC 95%: 3.20-3.62). This difference is statistically significant (P<.001). The preoperative risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.27; IC 95%: 2.69-3.84) was better than the preoperative risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 2.77; IC 95%: 2.64-2.89), also a statistically significant difference (P<.05). The global risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.79) has better accuracy than the preoperative risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.64). CONCLUSION: The risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al. to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in the preoperative phase has a limited usefulness. Additional refinements in the preoperative risk score are needed to improve its accuracy

[Validation of abdominal wound dehiscence's risk model]. / Validación de un modelo de riesgo de evisceración.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine the usefulness of the risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al., and a modification of the same, to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational longitudinal retrospective study. SAMPLE: Patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions in the General and Digestive Surgery Department of the Sabadell's Hospital-Parc Taulí's Health and University Corporation-Barcelona, between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010. Dependent variable: Abdominal wound dehiscence. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Global risk score, preoperative risk score (postoperative variables were excluded), global and preoperative probabilities of developing abdominal wound dehiscence. SAMPLE: 176 patients. Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: 15 (8.5%). The global risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 4.97; IC 95%: 4.15-5.79) was better than the global risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.41; IC 95%: 3.20-3.62). This difference is statistically significant (P<.001). The preoperative risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.27; IC 95%: 2.69-3.84) was better than the preoperative risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 2.77; IC 95%: 2.64-2.89), also a statistically significant difference (P<.05). The global risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.79) has better accuracy than the preoperative risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.64). CONCLUSION: The risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al. to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in the preoperative phase has a limited usefulness. Additional refinements in the preoperative risk score are needed to improve its accuracy.