Non-urgent Surgery Research Articles

Consequences of delaying non-urgent surgeries during COVID-19: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada

ObjectivesTo ensure sufficient resources to care for patients with COVID-19, healthcare systems delayed non-urgent surgeries to free capacity. This study explores the consequences of delaying non-urgent surgery on surgical care...

Preferences for the Societal Impacts of a Pandemic when it Transitions into an Endemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

The stage of the pandemic significantly affects people's preferences for (the societal impacts of) COVID-19 policies. No discrete choice experiments were conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic was in a transition phase. This is the first study to empirically investigate how citizens weigh the key societal impacts of pandemic policies when the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into an endemic. We performed two discrete choice experiments among 2181 Dutch adults that included six attributes: COVID-19 deaths, physical health problems, mental health problems, financial problems, surgery delays and the degree to which individual liberties are restricted. We used latent class choice models to identify heterogeneous preferences for the impacts of COVID-19 measures across different groups of respondents. A large majority of the participants in this study was willing to accept deaths to avoid that citizens experience physical complaints, mental health issues, financial problems and the postponement of surgeries. The willingness to tolerate COVID-19 deaths to avoid these societal impacts differed substantially between participants. When participants were provided with information about the stringency of COVID-19 measures, they assigned relatively less value to preventing the postponement of non-urgent surgeries for 1-3 months across all classes. Having gone through a pandemic, most Dutch citizens clearly prefer pandemic policies that consider citizens' financial situations, physical problems, mental health problems and individual liberties, alongside the effects on excess mortality and pressure on healthcare.

Association of Pre-Operative Hyponatraemia with Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Non-Urgent Degenerative Spine Surgery, a Retrospective Study.

Hyponatraemia increases the morbidity and mortality risks of orthopaedic patients. When undergoing spine surgery, hyponatraemic patients have high risks of pneumonia and of staying in hospital for up to 1 day longer compared with non-hyponatraemic patients. This study aims to assess the occurrence of adverse events among patients with pre-operative hyponatraemia after undergoing lumbar surgery. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients who underwent spinal surgery in 2011 to 2013 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Multivariate analysis was conducted to demonstrate the difference in post-operative complication rates between hyponatraemic patients and normonatraemic patients. Post-operative adverse events, need for blood transfusion and length of stay were considered as clinical outcome data. A total of 58,049 patients were included; pre-operatively, 55,012 (94.8%) were normonatraemic and 3037 (5.2%) were hyponatraemic. Multivariate analysis showed that hyponatraemic patients had higher rates of adverse events, blood transfusions and urinary tract infections. Specifically, 632 (20.8%) hyponatraemic patients developed adverse events, compared with 6821 (12.4%) normonatraemic patients; the hyponatraemic patients received transfusions, compared with 6821 (7.4%) normonatraemic patients; and 97 (3.2%) hyponatraemic patients developed urinary tract infections, compared with 715 (1.3%) normonatraemic patients. Finally, an extended length of stay beyond 6 days occurred in 604 (19.9%) hyponatraemic patients, compared with 4676 (8.5%) normonatraemic patients. Our study identified an association between pre-operative hyponatraemia and post-operative adverse events in spinal surgery patients. However, it is unclear whether hyponatraemia caused the higher adverse event rate.

The ball's in your court: Trends, causes, outcomes, and costs of patient transfer for pediatric testicular torsion

BackgroundThe transfer of pediatric patients with testicular torsion from community hospitals to pediatric centers can be a time and resource-intensive step toward emergent surgical intervention. ObjectiveWe sought to describe trends of patient transfer in our state and compare clinical outcomes and health system costs between patients transferred and treated primarily at a pediatric center. Study DesignThis retrospective cohort study compared patients aged 1-18 years who presented directly to a pediatric center to those transferred for acute testicular torsion from 2018-2023. Exclusion criteria included age <1 year, non-urgent surgery, and admission from clinic. Patient age, BMI, Tanner stage, ASA class, insurance coverage, and presentation time were covariates. Group characteristics and times from symptom onset to initial ED presentation to surgery were compared via two-sided Student’s t-tests. Clinical outcomes (orchiectomy, testicular atrophy) were compared via Fisher’s exact tests. Costs from transferring hospitals were estimated from costs at our institution, and medical transport costs were extrapolated from contract prices between transport agencies and the pediatric center to compare total episode-of-care cost. ResultsA total of 133 cases (37 primaries, 96 transfers) met inclusion criteria. Transfers increased over the study period (67% to 75%). There were no significant differences in age, Tanner stage, ASA score, BMI, or time of day of presentation between groups. Median transfer distance was 12 miles (IQR 7-22) and time was 1 hour (IQR 1-2). More than half of cases (53%) were transferred due to hospital policy regarding surgical treatment of minors, and 25% due to lack of urology coverage. Time from initial ED site to OR was nearly doubled for the transfer group (median 4.5 vs 2.5 hours, p=0.02). Despite a higher rate of orchiectomy in the primary group (43 vs 22%, p=0.01), this difference was not significant after stratification by symptom duration. The estimated average cost of care for patients transferred was twice that of primary patients ($15,082 vs $6,898). DiscussionTransfer of pediatric patients in our state for testicular torsion has increased in recent years. Hospital policies and local urology coverage are primary drivers of patient transfer which nearly doubled time to surgical intervention and more than doubled cost of care. Clinical outcomes were driven by delayed presentation. ConclusionTransfer of pediatric patients for testicular torsion nearly doubles time to surgical intervention and more than doubles cost of care. Restrictive hospital policies and gaps in rural hospital urology coverage present opportunities to improve the quality and efficiency of care for these children.

Cervical Spine Surgery Following COVID-19 Infection: When is it Safe to Proceed?

Retrospective. We utilized the NIH National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database to characterize the risk profile of patients undergoing spine surgery during multiple time windows following the COVID-19 infection. While the impact of COVID-19 on various organ systems is well documented, there is limited knowledge regarding its effect on perioperative complications following spine surgery or the optimal timing of surgery after an infection. We asked the National COVID Cohort Collaborative for patients who underwent cervical spine surgery. Patients were stratified into those with an initial documented COVID-19 infection within 3 time periods: 0-2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, or 6-12 weeks before surgery. A total of 29,449 patients who underwent anterior approach cervical spine surgery and 46,379 patients who underwent posterior approach cervical spine surgery were included. Patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their COVID-19 diagnosis had a significantly increased risk for venous thromboembolic events, sepsis, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality, irrespective of the anterior or posterior approach. Among patients undergoing surgery between 2 and 6 weeks after COVID-19 infection, the 30-day mortality risk remained elevated in patients undergoing a posterior approach only. Patients undergoing surgery between 6 and 12 weeks from the date of the COVID-19 infection did not show significantly elevated rates of any complications analyzed. Patients undergoing either anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery within 2 weeks from the initial COVID-19 diagnosis are at increased risk for perioperative venous thromboembolic events, sepsis, and mortality. Elevated perioperative complication risk does not persist beyond 2 weeks, except for 30-day mortality in posterior approach surgeries. On the basis of these results, it may be warranted to postpone nonurgent spine surgeries for at least 2 weeks following a COVID-19 infection and advise patients of the increased perioperative complication risk when urgent surgery is required.

The Effect of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Pituitary Surgery

PurposeAs the COVID-19 pandemic spread to the United States in 2020, there was an impetus towards postponing or ceasing non-urgent transsphenoidal pituitary surgeries to prevent spread of the virus. Some centers encouraged transcranial approaches for patients with declining neurologic function. However, no large-scale data exists evaluating the effects this had on national pituitary practice patterns. MethodsPituitary surgeries in the National Inpatient Sample were identified from 2017-2020. Surgeries in 2020 were compared to the three years prior to determine any differences in demographics, surgical trends/approaches and perioperative outcomes.In 2020, there was a decline in overall pituitary surgeries (34.2 vs. 36.3%, odds ratio (OR) 0.88, p<0.001) yet transsphenoidal approaches represented a higher proportion of interventions (69.0 vs. 64.9%, p<0.001). Neurosurgical complications were higher (51.9 vs. 47.4%, OR 1.13, p<0.001) and patients were less likely to be discharged home (86.4 vs. 88.5%, OR 0.84, p<0.001). This was especially true in April 2020 during the first peak in COVID-19 cases when transcranial approaches and odds of mortality/complications were highest. ConclusionsIn 2020, transsphenoidal surgery remained the preferred approach for pituitary tumor resection despite initial recommendations against the approach to prevent COVID-19 spread. Pituitary surgeries had a higher risk of periprocedural complications despite accounting for preoperative comorbidities, COVID-19 infection status, and surgical approach, suggesting that an overwhelmed hospital system can negatively influence surgical outcomes in non-infected patients.

Surgeon- and hospital-level variation in wait times for scheduled non-urgent surgery in Ontario, Canada: A cross-sectional population-based study.

Canadian health systems fare poorly in providing timely access to elective surgical care, which is crucial for quality, trust, and satisfaction. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of surgical wait times for adults receiving non-urgent cataract surgery, knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, gallbladder surgery, and non-cancer uterine surgery in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. We obtained data from the Wait Times Information System (WTIS) database. Inter- and intra-hospital and surgeon variations in wait time were described graphically with caterpillar plots. We used non-nested 3-level hierarchical random effects models to estimate variation partition coefficients, quantifying the proportion of wait time variance attributable to surgeons and hospitals. A total of 942,605 procedures at 107 healthcare facilities, conducted by 1,834 surgeons, were included in the analysis. We observed significant intra- and inter-provider variations in wait times across all five surgical procedures. Inter-facility median wait time varied between six-fold for gallbladder surgery and 15-fold for knee arthroplasty. Inter-surgeon variation was more pronounced, ranging from a 17-fold median wait time difference for cataract surgery to a 216-fold difference for non-cancer uterine surgery. The proportion of variation in wait times attributable to facilities ranged from 6.2% for gallbladder surgery to 23.0% for cataract surgery. In comparison, surgeon-related variation ranged from 16.0% for non-cancer uterine surgery to 28.0% for cataract surgery. There is extreme variability in surgical wait times for five common, high-volume, non-urgent surgical procedures. Strategies to address surgical wait times must address the variation between service providers through better coordination of supply and demand. Approaches such as single-entry models could improve surgical system performance.

Cardiorespiratory arrest due to grade IV anaphylactic shock with succinylcholine , report of a case and review of the literature.

Anaphylactic shock caused by anesthetic agents is a serious complication that can lead to the death of the patient despite well-conducted resuscitation. Succinylcholine is the primary source of anaphylactic shock in anesthesia. Used for over 60 years as the product of choice in emergency situations and during difficult intubation; its use is wide in all countries of the globe. We report the observation of a 77-year-old patient who underwent ophthalmological surgery under general anesthesia. After induction with propofol and placement of a laryngeal mask, a decision to orotracheal intubation was made given the ventilation difficulties. An anesthetic protocol combining a hypnotic to deepen the narcosis with propofol and curarization using suxamethonium was chosen. A few minutes after intubation, ventilator capnia is undetectable and the pulse is unobtainable while an ECG tracing persists. CPR is performed by external cardiac massage, bolus injection of adrenaline (4 mg in cumulative doses) associated with manual ventilation with FIO2 at 100%, cessation of any current product, filling with crystalloids and 250ml of bicarbonate 4, 2%. An effective pulse and blood pressure are found after no-flow for one (1) minute and low-flow for 10 minutes. Samples were taken for additional explorations. With the success of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and non-urgent surgery, it was decided not to begin the intervention and to transfer the patient to intensive care for continued treatment in the face of suspicion of serious anaphylactic shock. After twenty-four (24) hours of monitoring, he was extubated and his release from intensive care was authorized after the seventy-second hours. The allergological consultation carried out after the event concluded that there was allergic hypersensitivity to suxamethonium, a molecule contraindicated for life in this patient.

A global analysis of implants and replacements of pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy

At the beginning of the COVID-19 emergency, non-urgent surgical procedures had to be deferred, but also emergencies were reduced. To assess the global trend of pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardiac-defibrillator (ICD) procedures performed in Italy before, during, and after the first COVID-19 emergency, all the Italian hospital discharge records related to PM/ICD procedures performed between 2012 and 2021, sent to the National Institute of Health, were reviewed. Compared to 2019, in 2020, there was a reduction of first PM implants (52,216 to 43,962, −16%; p < 0.01), but not replacements (16,591 to 17,331, + 4%; p = 0.16). In particular, in April 2020, there was a drop of first implants (− 53,4% vs the average value of April 2018 and April 2019; p < 0.01), while the reduction of replacements was less evident (−32.6%; p = NS). In 2021, PM procedures increased to values similar to the pre-pandemic period. A reduction of ICD procedures was observed in 2020 (22,355, −7% toward 2019), mainly in April 2020 (− 46% vs April 2018/April 2019; p = 0.03). In 2021, the rate of ICD procedures increased (+ 14% toward 2020). A non-significant reduction of “urgent” procedures (complete atrioventricular block for PM and ventricular fibrillation for ICD), even in April 2020, was observed. In 2020, there was a reduction of first PM implants and ICDs, offset by increased activity in 2021. No decrease in PM replacements was observed, and the drop in “urgent” PM and ICD procedures was not statistically significant.

Multi-institutional Analysis of Endoscopic Sellar Surgical Volumes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We sought to quantify trends in operative volumes and complications of endoscopic sellar surgery before and after the COVID-19 pandemic onset. We performed a retrospective analysis. TriNetX database analysis. All adults undergoing neuroendoscopy for resection of pituitary tumor (Current Procedural Terminology code 62165) with diagnosis of benign/malignant neoplasm of pituitary gland (D35.2/C75.1) or benign/malignant neoplasm of craniopharyngeal duct (D35.3/C75.2) were included using the TriNetX database for 2 years before (pre-COVID group) and 2 years after (post-COVID group) February 17, 2020. A total of 1238 patients in the pre-COVID group and 1186 patients in the post-COVID group were compared. Age, gender, and race were statistically similar between the groups (P > .05). Surgical volume decreased by 6% in the post-COVID group. In 2020 Q2, operative volume decreased by 19%, and in 2021 Q4 (peak COVID-19 caseload in the United States), operative volumes decreased by 29% compared to 2 years prior. Postoperative complications including meningitis (P = .49), cerebrospinal fluid leak (P = .36), visual field deficits (P = .07), postoperative pneumonia or respiratory failure (P = .42), and 30-day readmission rates (P = .89) were similar between the 2 groups. Overall, endoscopic sellar surgery may continue to fluctuate with increased COVID-19 outbreaks. Patient outcomes do not appear to be worsened by decreased operative volumes or delays in nonurgent surgeries.

A temporal analysis of perioperative complications following COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion: When is it safe to proceed?

Background ContextCOVID-19 has been shown to adversely affect multiple organ systems, yet little is known about its effect on perioperative complications after spine surgery or the optimal timing of surgery after an infection. We used the NIH National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database to characterize the risk profile in patients undergoing spine surgery during multiple time windows following COVID-19 infection. MethodsWe queried the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, a database of 17.4 million persons with 6.9 million COVID-19 cases, for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Patients were stratified into those with an initial documented COVID-19 infection within 3 time periods: 0 to 2 weeks, 2 to 6 weeks, or 6 to 12 weeks before surgery. ResultsA total of 60,541 patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion procedures were included. Patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their COVID-19 diagnosis had a significantly increased risk for venous thromboembolic events (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.58–3.32), sepsis (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03–2.36), 30-day mortality (OR 5.55, 95% CI 3.53–8.71), and 1-year mortality (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.91–3.82) compared with patients who were COVID negative during the same period. There was no significant difference in the rates of acute kidney injury or surgical site infection. Patients undergoing surgery between 2 and 6 weeks or between 6 and 12 weeks from the date of COVID-19 infection did not show significantly elevated rates of any complication analyzed. ConclusionsPatients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion within 2 weeks from initial COVID-19 diagnosis are at increased risk for perioperative venous thromboembolic events and sepsis. This effect does not persist beyond 2 weeks, however, so it may be warranted to postpone non-urgent spine surgeries for at least 2 weeks following a COVID-19 infection or to consider a more aggressive VTE chemoprophylaxis regimen for urgent surgery in COVID-19 patients.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected medical care for chronic diseases. This study aimed to systematically assess the pandemic impact on oncological care in Germany using a rapid review. MEDLINE, Embase, study and preprint registries and study bibliographies were searched for studies published between 2020 and 2 November 2022. Inclusion was based on the PCC framework: population (cancer), concept (oncological care) and context (COVID-19 pandemic in Germany). Studies were selected after title/abstract and full-text screening by two authors. Extracted data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively. Risk of bias was assessed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Overall, 77 records (59 peer-reviewed studies and 18 reports) with administrative, cancer registry and survey data were included. Disruptions in oncological care were reported and varied according to pandemic-related factors (e.g., pandemic stage) and other (non-pandemic) factors (e.g., care details). During higher restriction periods fewer consultations and non-urgent surgeries, and delayed diagnosis and screening were consistently reported. Heterogeneous results were reported for treatment types other than surgery (e.g., psychosocial care) and aftercare, while ongoing care remained mostly unchanged. The risk of bias was on average moderate. Disruptions in oncological care were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Such disruptions probably depended on factors that were insufficiently controlled for in statistical analyses and evidence quality was on average only moderate. Research focus on patient outcomes (e.g., longer term consequences of disruptions) and pandemic management by healthcare systems is potentially relevant for future pandemics or health emergencies.

The impact of delayed nonurgent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic on surgeons in Alberta: a qualitative interview study.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nonurgent surgeries were delayed to preserve capacity for patients admitted with COVID-19; surgeons were challenged personally and professionally during this time. We aimed to describe the impact of delays to nonurgent surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic from the surgeons' perspective in Alberta. We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study in Alberta from January to March 2022. We recruited adult and pediatric surgeons via social media and through personal contacts from our research network. Semistructured interviews were conducted via Zoom, and we analyzed the data via inductive thematic analysis to identify relevant themes and subthemes related to the impact of delaying nonurgent surgery on surgeons and their provision of surgical care. We conducted 12 interviews with 9 adult surgeons and 3 pediatric surgeons. Six themes were identified: accelerator for a surgical care crisis, health system inequity, system-level management of disruptions in surgical services, professional and interprofessional impact, personal impact, and pragmatic adaptation to health system strain. Participants also identified strategies to mitigate the challenges experienced due to nonurgent surgical delays during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., additional operating time, surgical process reviews to reduce inefficiencies, and advocacy for sustained funding of hospital beds, human resources and community-based postoperative care). Our study describes the impacts and challenges experienced by adult and pediatric surgeons of delayed nonurgent surgeries because of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Surgeons identified potential health system-, hospital- and physician-level strategies to minimize future impacts on patients from delays of nonurgent surgery.

Dexamethasone and persistent wound pain: a prespecified analysis of the randomised Perioperative Administration of Dexamethasone and Infection (PADDI) trial

BackgroundDexamethasone is commonly administered intraoperatively to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting and is believed to have analgesic properties. It is unknown whether it has an impact on chronic wound pain. MethodsIn this prespecified embedded superiority substudy of the randomised PADDI trial, patients undergoing non-urgent noncardiac surgery received dexamethasone 8 mg or placebo intravenously after induction of anaesthesia, and were followed up for 6 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the incidence of pain in the surgical wound at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included acute postoperative pain and correlates of chronic postsurgical pain. ResultsWe included 8478 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population (4258 in the dexamethasone group and 4220 in the matched placebo group). The primary outcome occurred in 491 subjects (11.5%) in the dexamethasone arm and 404 (9.6%) subjects in the placebo arm (relative risk 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.06–1.41, P=0.003). Maximum pain scores at rest and on movement in the first 3 postoperative days were lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group {median 5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 3.0–8.0) vs 6 (IQR 3.0–8.0) and median 7 (IQR 5.0–9.0) vs 8 (IQR 6.0–9.0), P<0.001 for both}. Severity of postoperative pain was not predictive of chronic postsurgical pain. The severity of chronic postsurgical pain and the frequency of neuropathic features did not differ between treatment groups. ConclusionAdministration of dexamethasone 8 mg i.v. was associated with an increase in the risk of pain in the surgical wound 6 months after surgery. Clinical trial registrationACTRN12614001226695.

Potentially Avoidable Admissions and Prolonged Hospitalization in Patients with Suspected Colon Cancer.

Suspicion of cancer in the Emergency Department (ED) may lead to potentially avoidable and prolonged admissions. We aimed to examine the reasons for potentially avoidable and prolonged hospitalizations after admissions from the ED for new colon cancer diagnoses (ED-dx). A retrospective, single-institution analysis was conducted of patients with ED-dx between 2017 and 2018. Defined criteria were used toidentify potentially avoidable admissions. Patients without avoidable admissions were examined for ideal length of stay (iLOS), using separate defined criteria. Prolonged length of stay (pLOS) was defined as actual length of stay (aLOS) being greater than 1 day longer than iLOS. Of 97 patients with ED-dx, 12% had potentially avoidable admissions, most often (58%) forcancer workup. Very little difference in demographic, tumor characteristics, or symptoms were found, except patients with potentially avoidable admissions were more functional (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score 0-1: 83% vs. 46%; p=0.049) and had longer symptom duration prior to ED presentation {24 days (interquartile range [IQR] 7-75) vs. 7 days (IQR 2-21)}. Among the 60patients who had necessary admissions but did not require urgent intervention, 78% hadpLOS, most often for non-urgent surgery (60%) and further oncologic workup. The median difference between iLOS and aLOS was 12 days (IQR 8-16) for pLOS. Potentially avoidable admissions following Ed-dx were uncommon but were mostly for oncologic workup. Once admitted, the majority of patients had pLOS, most often for definitive surgery and further oncologic workup. This suggests a lack of systems to safely transition to outpatient cancer management.

Surviving The Surge: Nonurgent Elective Procedures, Intensive Care, And Mississippi’s COVID-19 Waves

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Mississippi in 2020 and 2021, nonurgent elective procedures requiring hospitalization were halted three times to preserve the state's hospital resources. To evaluate the change in hospital intensive care unit (ICU) capacity after the implementation of this policy, we analyzed Mississippi's hospital discharge data. We compared daily mean ICU admissions and census for nonurgent elective procedures between three intervention periods and baseline periods corresponding to Mississippi State Department of Health executive orders. We further evaluated the observed and predicted trends, using interrupted time series analyses. Overall, the executive orders reduced the mean number of ICU admissions for elective procedures from 13.4 patients to 9.8 patients daily (a 26.9percent decline). This policy also decreased the mean ICU census for nonurgent elective procedures from 68.0 patients to 56.6 patients daily (a 16.8percent decline). The state managed to free, on average, eleven ICU beds daily. Postponing nonurgent elective procedures in Mississippi was a successful strategy that resulted in a decline in ICU bed use for nonurgent elective surgeries during times of unprecedented stress on the health care system.

Translated article] Impact of COVID-19 pandemia on spine surgery in 2nd level hospital

IntroductionThe consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, like in any other field of medicine, had such a massive effect in the activity of spine surgeons. ObjectivesThe main purpose of the study is quantifying the number of interventions done between 2016 and 2021 and analyze the time between the indication and the intervention as an indirect measurement of the waiting list. As secondary objectives we focused on variations of the length of stay and duration of the surgeries during this specific period. MethodsWe performed a descriptive retrospective study including all the interventions and diagnosis made during a period including pre-pandemic data (starting on 2016) until 2021, when we considered the normalization of surgical activity was achieved. A total of 1039 registers were compiled. The data collected included age, gender, days in waiting list before the intervention, diagnosis, time of hospitalization and surgery duration. ResultsWe found that the total number of interventions during the pandemic has significantly decreased compared to 2019 (32.15% less in 2020 and 23.5% less in 2021). After data analysis, we found an increase of data dispersion, average waiting list time and for diagnosis after 2020. No differences were found regarding hospitalization time or surgical time. ConclusionThe number of surgeries decreased during pandemic due to the redistribution of human and material resources to face the raising of critical COVID-19 patients. The increase of data dispersion and median of waiting time, is the consequence of a growing waiting list for non-urgent surgeries during the pandemic as the urgent interventions also raised, those with a shorter waiting time.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Access to Cancer Surgery: Analysis of Surgical Wait Times in British Columbia, Canada.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread, efforts were made to preserve resources for the anticipated surge of COVID-19 patients in British Columbia, Canada. However, the relationship between COVID-19 hospitalizations and access to cancer surgery is unclear. In this project, we analyze the impact of COVID-19 patient volumes on wait time for cancer surgery. We conducted a retrospective study using population-based datasets of regional surgical wait times and COVID-19 patient volumes. Weekly median wait times for urgent, nonurgent, cancer, and noncancer surgeries, and maximum volumes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were studied. The results were qualitatively analyzed. A sustained association between weekly median wait time for priority and other cancer surgeries and increase hospital COVID-19 patient volumes was not qualitatively discernable. In response to the first phase of COVID-19 patient volumes, relative to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels, wait time were shortened for urgent cancer surgery but increased for nonurgent surgeries. During the second phase, for all diagnostic groups, wait times returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. During the third phase, wait times for all surgeries increased. Cancer surgery access may have been influenced by other factors, such as policy directives and local resource issues, independent of hospitalized COVID-19 patient volumes. The initial access limitations gradually improved with provincial and institutional resilience, and vaccine rollout.

The impact of delaying surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta: a qualitative study.

The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed health care systems, leading many jurisdictions to reduce surgeries to create capacity (beds and staff) to care for the surge of patients with COVID-19; little is known about the impact of this on patients whose surgery was delayed. The objective of this study was to understand the patient and family/caregiver perspective of having a surgery delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using an interpretative descriptive approach, we conducted interviews between Sept. 20 and Oct. 8, 2021. Adult patients who had their surgery delayed or cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada, and their family/caregivers were eligible to participate. Trained interviewers conducted semistructured interviews, which were iteratively analyzed by 2 independent reviewers using an inductive approach to thematic content analysis. We conducted 16 interviews with 15 patients and 1 family member/caregiver, ranging from 27 to 75 years of age, with a variety of surgical procedures delayed. We identified 4 interconnected themes: individual-level impacts on physical and mental health, family and friends, work and quality of life; system-level factors related to health care resources, communication and perceived accountability within the system; unique issues related to COVID-19 (maintaining health and isolation); and uncertainty about health and timing of surgery. Although the decision to delay nonurgent surgeries was made to manage the strain on health care systems, our study illustrates the consequences of these decisions, which were diffuse and consequential. The findings of this study highlight the need to develop and adopt strategies to mitigate the burden of waiting for surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Short Term Outcome of Management of Early Breast Cancer Patients in COVID-19 Era. Ain Shams University Experience

Introduction: COVID-19 implied that a great number of infected individuals were hospitalized and possibly admitted to intensive care units. Cancer centers have rapidly changed models of care by delaying non-urgent surgeries. Breast surgeries were delayed for early breast cancer patients forcing clinicians to potentially alter treatment recommendations by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy until appropriate conditions were established. Aim of the work: to assess conservative breast cancer surgery after neo-adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer patients in COVID-19 era as regard surgical outcome, complications and early recurrence comparing results with previous results when patients underwent primary conservative breast surgery.