| 1. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Khatri, C, et al.
(author)
-
Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study
- 2021
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:11, s. e050830-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis.SettingProspective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study.ParticipantsPatients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative).Primary outcome30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality.ResultsThis study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p<0.001), age >80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups.Trial registration numberNCT04323644
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- van der Hage, J., et al.
(author)
-
The ESSO core curriculum committee update on surgical oncology
- 2021
-
In: Ejso. - : Elsevier BV. - 0748-7983. ; 47:11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: Surgical oncology is a defined specialty within the European Board of Surgery within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Variation in training and specialization still occurs across Europe. There is a need to align the core knowledge needed to fulfil the criteria across subspecialities in surgical oncology. Material and methods: The core curriculum, established in 2013, was developed with contributions from expert advisors from within the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and related subspeciality experts. Results: The current version reiterates and updates the core curriculum structure needed for current and future candidates who plans to train for and eventually sit the European fellowship exam for the European Board of Surgery in Surgical Oncology. The content included is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather to give the candidate an idea of expectations and areas for in depth study, in addition to the practical requirements. The five elements included are: Basic principles of oncology; Disease site specific oncology; Generic clinical skills; Training recommendations, and, lastly; Eligibility for the EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology. Conclusions: As evidence-based care for cancer patients evolves through research into basic science, translational research and clinical trials, the core curriculum will evolve, mature and adapt to deliver continual improvements in cancer outcomes for patients. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
|
|
| 9. |
- Davies, J. I., et al.
(author)
-
Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report
- 2021
-
In: Plos Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 18:8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define-for the first time-the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. Methods and findings The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries-who only made up 21% of the total attendees. Conclusions To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators-at the basic level-should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.
|
|
