Browsing by Subject "Orthopedic procedures"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Immuno-Thrombotic Complications of COVID-19: Implications for Timing of Surgery and Anticoagulation
    (Frontiers Media, 2022-05-04) Bunch, Connor M.; Moore, Ernest E.; Moore, Hunter B.; Neal, Matthew D.; Thomas, Anthony V.; Zackariya, Nuha; Zhao, Jonathan; Zackariya, Sufyan; Brenner, Toby J.; Berquist, Margaret; Buckner, Hallie; Wiarda, Grant; Fulkerson, Daniel; Huff, Wei; Kwaan, Hau C.; Lankowicz, Genevieve; Laubscher, Gert J.; Lourens, Petrus J.; Pretorius, Etheresia; Kotze, Maritha J.; Moolla, Muhammad S.; Sithole, Sithembiso; Maponga, Tongai G.; Kell, Douglas B.; Fox, Mark D.; Gillespie, Laura; Khan, Rashid Z.; Mamczak, Christiaan N.; March, Robert; Macias, Rachel; Bull, Brian S.; Walsh, Mark M.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, global governing bodies prioritized transmissibility-based precautions and hospital capacity as the foundation for delay of elective procedures. As elective surgical volumes increased, convalescent COVID-19 patients faced increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and clinicians had limited evidence for stratifying individual risk in this population. Clear evidence now demonstrates that those recovering from COVID-19 have increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. These data-in conjunction with the recent American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines-offer the evidence necessary to expand the early pandemic guidelines and guide the surgeon's preoperative risk assessment. Here, we argue elective surgeries should still be delayed on a personalized basis to maximize postoperative outcomes. We outline a framework for stratifying the individual COVID-19 patient's fitness for surgery based on the symptoms and severity of acute or convalescent COVID-19 illness, coagulopathy assessment, and acuity of the surgical procedure. Although the most common manifestation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is COVID-19 pneumonitis, every system in the body is potentially afflicted by an endotheliitis. This endothelial derangement most often manifests as a hypercoagulable state on admission with associated occult and symptomatic venous and arterial thromboembolisms. The delicate balance between hyper and hypocoagulable states is defined by the local immune-thrombotic crosstalk that results commonly in a hemostatic derangement known as fibrinolytic shutdown. In tandem, the hemostatic derangements that occur during acute COVID-19 infection affect not only the timing of surgical procedures, but also the incidence of postoperative hemostatic complications related to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC). Traditional methods of thromboprophylaxis and treatment of thromboses after surgery require a tailored approach guided by an understanding of the pathophysiologic underpinnings of the COVID-19 patient. Likewise, a prolonged period of risk for developing hemostatic complications following hospitalization due to COVID-19 has resulted in guidelines from differing societies that recommend varying periods of delay following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In conclusion, we propose the perioperative, personalized assessment of COVID-19 patients' CAC using viscoelastic hemostatic assays and fluorescent microclot analysis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Interval Between Preoperative Radiation and Surgery Is Not Associated with Overall Survival for Soft-tissue Sarcomas: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2021) Collier, Christopher D.; Kim, Chang-Yeon; Liu, Raymond W.; Getty, Patrick J.; Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: Most cancer centers prefer preoperative radiation therapy (preRT) over postoperative therapy to treat soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) to limit long-term fibrosis, joint stiffness, and edema. Surgery is often delayed after preRT to allow for tissue recovery and to reduce wound complications. However, the association between the time interval between preRT and surgery and survival is unknown. Questions/purposes: (1) What factors are associated with the preRT-surgery interval in patients with STS? (2) Is the preRT-surgery interval associated with overall survival? Methods: The National Cancer Database, a nationwide registry that includes 70% of all new cancers in the United States with 90% follow-up, was reviewed to identify 6378 patients who underwent preRT and surgical resection for a localized extremity or pelvic STS from 2004 to 2014. Patients were excluded if they had lymphatic or metastatic disease at diagnosis (23%; n = 1438), underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (24%; 1531), were missing vital status (8%; 487), had chemosensitive histologies (9%; 603), underwent radiation other than external beam (1%; 92), were missing preRT-surgery interval (1%; 45), or had a preRT-surgery interval greater than 120 days (< 1%; 6). A total of 2176 patients were included for analysis, with a mean preRT-surgery interval of 35 ± 16 days. A multiple linear regression model was generated to assess demographic, clinicopathologic, and treatment characteristics associated with the preRT-surgery interval. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was then conducted, stratified by the preRT-surgery interval, to assess survival over 10 years. Finally, a multivariate Cox regression analysis model was constructed to further evaluate the association between the preRT-surgery interval and overall survival, adjusted for demographic, clinicopathologic, and treatment characteristics. Results: A longer preRT-surgery interval was associated with higher age (β = 0.002 per year [95% CI 0.0 to 0.004]; p = 0.026), tumor location in the pelvis (compared with the lower extremity; β = 0.15 [95% CI 0.082 to 0.22]; p < 0.001), and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor subtype (compared with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma; β = 0.17 [95% CI 0.044 to 0.29]; p = 0.008). A shorter preRT-surgery interval was associated with higher facility volume (β = -0.002 per case [95% CI -0.003 to -0.002]; p = 0.026) and higher tumor stage (compared with Stage I; β = -0.066 [95% CI -0.13 to -0.006]; p = 0.03 for Stage II; β = -0.12 [95% CI -0.17 to -0.065]; p < 0.001 for Stage III). The 5-year overall survival rates were similar across all preRT-surgery interval groups: less than 3 weeks (66% [95% CI 60 to 72]), 3 to 4 weeks (65% [95% CI 60 to 71]), 4 to 5 weeks (65% [95% CI 60 to 71]), 5 to 6 weeks (66% [95% CI 60 to 72]), 6 to 7 weeks (63% [95% CI 54 to 72]), 7 to 9 weeks (66% [95% CI 58 to 74]), and more than 9 weeks (59% [95% CI 48 to 69]). Over 10 years, no difference in overall survival was observed when stratified by the preRT-surgery interval (p = 0.74). After controlling for potentially confounding variables, including age, sex, Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score, histology, tumor size, stage and surgery type, the preRT-surgery interval was not associated with survival (hazard ratio = 1 per day [95% CI 1 to 1]; p = 0.88). Conclusion: With the numbers available, this study demonstrates that a delay in surgery up to 120 days after radiation is not associated with poorer survival. Therefore, clinicians may be able to delay surgery to minimize the risks of wound complications and modifiable comorbidities without affecting overall survival.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.