D'Angelo, Anne-Lise D

Objective: To investigate the steps faculty surgeons take upon experiencing intraoperative error and synthesize these actions to offer a framework for coping with errors. Background: While intraoperative errors are inevitable, formal training in error recovery is insufficient and there are no established curricula that teach surgeons how to deal with the intraoperative error. This is problematic because insufficient error recovery is detrimental to both patient outcomes and surgeon psychological well-being. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis. One-hour in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with faculty surgeons from 3 hospitals. Surgeons described recent experiences with intraoperative error. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Analysis allowed for development of themes regarding responses to errors and coping strategies. Results: Twenty-seven surgeons (30% female) participated. Upon completion of the analysis, themes emerged in 3 distinct areas: (1) Exigency, or a need for training surgical learners how to cope with intraoperative errors, (2) Learning, or how faculty surgeons themselves learned to cope with intraoperative errors, and (3) Responses, or how surgeons now handle intraoperative errors. The latter category was organized into the STOPS framework: Intraoperative errors could produce STOPS: Stop, Talk to your Team, Obtain Help, Plan, Succeed. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides both novel insight into how surgeons cope with intraoperative errors and a framework that may be of great use to trainees and faculty alike.

BACKGROUND: Although the overall adoption of minimally invasive surgery in the nonemergent management of ulcerative colitis is established, little is known about its utilization in emergency settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess rates of urgent and emergent surgery over time in the era of emerging biologic therapies and to highlight the current practice in the United States regarding the utilization of minimally invasive surgery for urgent and emergent indications for ulcerative colitis. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis study. SETTINGS: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database. PATIENTS: All adult patients who underwent emergent or urgent colectomy for ulcerative colitis were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of emergency operations over time and utilization trends of minimally invasive surgery in urgent and emergent settings were assessed. Unadjusted and adjusted overall, surgical, and medical 30-day complication rates were compared between open and minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2219 patients were identified. Of those, 1515 patients (68.3%) underwent surgery in an urgent setting and 704 (31.7%) as an emergency. Emergent cases decreased over time (21% in 2006 to 8% in 2018; p < 0.0001). However, the rate of urgent surgeries has not significantly changed (42% in 2011 to 46% in 2018; p = 0.44). Minimally invasive surgery was offered to 70% of patients in the urgent group (1058/1515) and 22.6% of emergent indications (159/704). Overall, minimally invasive surgery was increasingly utilized over the study period in urgent (38% in 2011 to 71% in 2018; p < 0.0001) and emergent (0% in 2005 to 42% in 2018; p < 0.0001) groups. Compared to minimally invasive surgery, open surgery was associated with a higher risk of surgical, septic, and overall complications, and prolonged hospitalization. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature of the analysis. CONCLUSION: Based on a nationwide analysis from the United States, minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly and safely implemented for emergent and urgent indications for ulcerative colitis. Although the sum of emergent and urgent cases remained the same over the study period, emergency cases decreased significantly over the study period, which may be related to improved medical treatment options and a collaborative, specialized team approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B847. CIRUGÍA DE URGENCIA Y EMERGENCIA PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN LA ERA MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA Y DE TERAPIA BIOLÓGICA ANTECEDENTES: Si bien se ha establecido la adopción generalizada de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en el tratamiento electivo de la colitis ulcerosa, se sabe poco sobre su utilización en situaciones de emergencia. OBJETIVO: Evaluar las tasas de cirugía de urgencia a lo largo del tiempo en la era de las terapias biológicas emergentes y destacar la práctica actual en los Estados Unidos con respecto a la utilización de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva para las indicaciones de urgencia y emergencia de la colitis ulcerosa. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo. AJUSTES: Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes adultos que se sometieron a colectomía de emergencia o urgencia por colitis ulcerosa. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se evaluaron las tasas de operaciones de emergencia a lo largo del tiempo y las tendencias de utilización de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en entornos de urgencia y emergencia. Se compararon las tasas de complicaciones generales, quirúrgicas y médicas de 30 días no ajustadas y ajustadas entre la cirugía abierta y la mínimamente invasiva. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron un total de 2.219 pacientes. De ellos, 1.515 pacientes (68,3%) fueron intervenidos de urgencia y 704 (31,7%) de emergencia. Los casos emergentes disminuyeron con el tiempo (21% en 2006 a 8% en 2018; p <0,0001). Sin embargo, la tasa de cirugías urgentes no ha cambiado significativamente (42% en 2011 a 46% en 2018, p = 0,44). Se ofreció cirugía mínimamente invasiva al 70% de los pacientes del grupo urgente (1.058 / 1.515) y al 22,6% de las emergencias (159/704). En general, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se utilizó cada vez más durante el período de estudio en grupos urgentes (38% en 2011 a 71% en 2018; p <0,0001) y emergentes (0% en 2005 a 42% en 2018; p <0,0001). En comparación con la cirugía mínimamente invasiva, la cirugía abierta se asoció con un mayor riesgo de complicaciones generales, quirúrgicas, sépticas y hospitalización prolongada. LIMITACIONES: Carácter retrospectivo del análisis. CONCLUSIÓNES: Basado en un análisis nacional de los Estados Unidos, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se ha implementado de manera creciente y segura para las indicaciones emergentes y urgentes de la colitis ulcerosa. Si bien la suma de casos emergentes y urgentes permaneció igual durante el período de estudio, los casos de emergencia disminuyeron significativamente, lo que puede estar relacionado con mejores opciones de tratamiento médico y un enfoque de equipo colaborativo y especializado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B847. (Traducción—Dr. Felipe Bellolio)

AbstractUtility of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II cancer remains a matter of debate. Clinical guidelines suggest adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II tumors with high‐risk features, in particular T4 tumors. However, limited consensus exists regarding the importance of other high‐risk features (lymphovascular or perineural invasion, microsatellite instability). Our study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA (T3N0) colon cancer patients. Patients who underwent colectomy for stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma (2010‐2015) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided in two groups based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of patients with specific high‐risk features LVI, PNI and MSI was performed. Among 46 688 surgical patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma 5937 (12.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while 40 751 (87.3%) were observed. Five‐year IPTW‐adjusted survival was higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (79.7% [95% CI 79.1, 80.2]) compared to the observation group (70.3% [95% CI 69.7, 70.9]). Patients with high‐risk pathological features showed an estimated 5‐year survival benefit of 11.3% (78.2% [95% CI 77.4, 79.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI 65.9, 67.8]) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. This NCDB analysis revealed a survival benefit for patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma and high‐risk features that were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.