Explore the vast range of titles available.

A concern has been that health care reorganizations during the first COVID-19 wave have led to delays in elective surgeries, resulting in increased complications and even mortality. This multicenter study examined the changes in waiting times of elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. Data on elective surgery were gathered from three Finnish public hospitals for years 2017-2020. Surgery incidence and waiting times were examined and the year 2020 was compared to the reference years 2017-2019. The mean annual, monthly, and weekly waiting times were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The most common diagnosis groups were examined separately. A total of 88 693 surgeries were included during the study period. The mean waiting time in 2020 was 92.6 (CI 91.5-93.8) days, whereas the mean waiting time in the reference years was 85.8 (CI 85.1-86.5) days, resulting in an average 8% increase in waiting times in 2020. Elective procedure incidence decreased rapidly in the onset of the first COVID-19 wave in March 2020 but recovered in May and June, after which the surgery incidence was 22% higher than in the reference years and remained at this level until the end of the year. In May 2020 and thereafter until November, waiting times were longer with monthly increases varying between 7% and 34%. In gastrointestinal and genitourinary diseases and neoplasms, waiting times were longer in 2020. In cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, waiting times were shorter in 2020. The health care reorganizations due to the pandemic have increased elective surgery waiting times by as much as one-third, even though the elective surgery rate increased by one-fifth after the lockdown.

Background Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients’ functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost–utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs’ results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect. Results We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost–benefit analyses, 12 cost–consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective. Conclusions We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Background Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I 2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value  = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early ( p value  = 0.33) or late ( p value  = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .

Background and Objectives: Elective arthroplasty in Romania has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and its effects are not quantified so far. The aim of this paper is to determine the impact of COVID-19 on arthroplasty interventions and how they varied in Romania. Materials and Methods: We performed a national retrospective analysis of patients who underwent primary and revision elective hip and knee interventions at the 120 orthopedic-traumatology hospitals in Romania that are registered in the National Endoprosthesis Registry from 1 January 2019 to 1 September 2022. First, we examined the monthly trend in the number of surgeries for seven categories of arthroplasties. We calculated the percentage change in the average number of cases per month and compared them with other types of interventions. We then examined the percentage change in the average monthly number of arthroplasty cases, relative to the number of COVID-19 cases reported nationwide, the influence of the pandemic on length of hospital stay, and the percentage of patients discharged at home who no longer follow recovery protocols. Finally, we calculated the impact of the pandemic on hospital revenues. Results: There was an abrupt decrease in the volume of primary interventions in hip and knee patients by up to 69.14% with a low degree of patient care, while the average duration of scheduled hospitalizations increased. We found a 1–2-day decrease in length of hospital stays for explored arthroplasties. We saw an increasing trend of home discharge, which was higher for primary interventions compared to revision interventions. The total hospital revenues were 50.96% lower in 2020 compared to 2019, and are currently increasing, with the 2022 estimate being 81.46%. Conclusions: The conclusion of this study is that the COVID-19 pandemic severely affected the volume of arthroplasty of the 120 hospitals in Romania, which also had unfavorable financial implications. We proposed the development of new procedures and alternative clinical solutions, as well as personalized home recovery programs, to be activated if necessary, for possible future outbreaks.

The cancellation of elective surgeries is a major problem that increases wait times, exacerbates costs and can negatively affect patients, both psychologically and physically. Our objectives were to investigate the reasons for cancellations across specialties at a single centre, to compare these reasons with previous data from the same centre between 2005 and 2009 and to examine how cancellations affected patients’ lives and views of the medical system in cases when the cancellations were potentially preventable. Cancellation records of all elective surgeries scheduled between June 1, 2012, and Jan. 31, 2016, at a medium-sized, tertiary care, academic centre were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the rates and reasons for cancellation and interviewed a subset of patients whose surgery was cancelled for a potentially preventable reason (i.e., operating room running late, bed shortage, emergency case took place of scheduled surgery). Across 11 surgical specialties, 2933 of 20 881 surgeries (14.0%) were cancelled and of these, 2448 (83.5%) were for administrative or structural reasons. Compared with the data collected previously for general, gynecological and urological procedures, cancellation rates increased from 8.1% to 11.8%. Although patients reported inconvenience, they were generally satisfied with the availability and the quality of the health care they received. Consistent with the previous study, our data suggest that most cancellations occur because of administrative or structural processes that are potentially preventable. Targeting these processes may help to reduce cancellations for elective surgeries and thereby improve economic efficiency and patient outcomes. L’annulation des chirurgies électives est un problème majeur qui allonge les temps d’attente, fait gonfler les coûts et peut affecter négativement les patients, tant psychologiquement que physiquement. Nos objectifs étaient de découvrir les raisons des annulations dans les diverses spécialités d’un seul centre, afin de comparer ces raisons à des données antérieures du même centre recueillies entre 2005 et 2009 et d’examiner en quoi les annulations affectent la vie des patients et leur perception du système médical dans les cas où les annulations auraient pu être évitées. Les dossiers d’annulation de toutes les chirurgies électives entre le 1er juin 2012 et le 31 janvier 2016 dans un centre hospitalier universitaire de soins tertiaires de taille moyenne ont été analysés de manière rétrospective. Nous avons évalué les taux d’annulation et les motifs, et interrogé un groupe de patients dont la chirurgie a été annulée pour des raisons potentiellement évitables (p. ex., retards au bloc opératoire, manque de lits, priorisation de cas plus urgents). Entre les 11 spécialités chirurgicales, 2933 des 20 881 chirurgies (14,0 %) ont été annulées et parmi elles, 2448 (83,5 %) pour des raisons administratives ou structurelles. Comparativement aux données précédemment recueillies pour les interventions générales, gynécologiques et urologiques, les taux d’annulation ont augmenté de 8,1 % à 11,8 %. Même si les patients ont déploré des inconvénients, ils se sont généralement déclarés satisfaits de la qualité des soins reçus et de leur accessibilité. Comme lors de l’étude précédente, nos données suggèrent que les causes les plus fréquentes d’annulation sont liées à des marches à suivre administratives ou structurelles qui sont potentiellement évitables. Cibler ces marches à suivre pourrait contribuer à réduire le nombre d’annulations de chirurgies électives et améliorer de ce fait l’efficience économique et les résultats chez les patients.

Drug-related problems (DRP) in pre-operative care can harm patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop and validate a pre-operative risk prediction tool (mediPORT) to calculate the probability of DRP in admitted patients. Elective surgery patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the pre-anaesthesia clinic and participating in a medication review by pharmacists were included in this case-control study. Routinely reported patient variables were included in a backward stepwise logistic regression to determine the most relevant predictors (minimum Akaike Information Criterion) of DRP. Performances using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were assessed to test the model. Internal validation was performed using a 10-fold cross-validation procedure. The target population consisted of 11,176 participants, of whom 284 cases with ≥ 1 DRP and 980 controls without DRP were drawn. Most relevant predictors for DRP were age, number of drugs at admission, body mass index, sex and renal function. These factors were included in the final five variable model. A correlation between renal function and occurrence of DRP was found. Age and number of drugs frequently appeared in all models of the backwards elimination and represented an alternative two variable model. The AUC for predicting DRP were 0.823 (CI 95% 0.766-0.879) for the five-variable model and 0.872 (CI 95% 0.835-0.909) for the two-variable model. In the validation model, sensitivity was 77.6% and specificity was 76.5% for the five-variable model and 81.3%, 75% for the two-variable model, respectively. Resulting equations can be used by hospital admission to identify patients at high risk, for whom a precise assessment of medication is critical.

Background To increase bed capacity and resources, hospitals have postponed elective surgeries, although the financial impact of this decision is unknown. We sought to report elective surgical case distribution, associated gross hospital revenue and regional hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) bed capacity as elective surgical cases are cancelled and then resumed under simulated trends of COVID-19 incidence. Methods A retrospective, cohort analysis was performed using insurance claims from 161 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2017. COVID-19 cases were calculated using Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation models. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports on the number of hospitalized and intensive care patients by age estimated the number of cases seen in the ICU, the reduction in elective surgeries and the financial impact of this from historic claims data, using a denominator of all inpatient revenue and outpatient surgeries. Results Assuming 5% infection prevalence, cancelling all elective procedures decreases ICU overcapacity from 160 to 130%, but these elective surgical cases contribute 78% (IQR 74, 80) (1.1 trillion (T) US dollars) to inpatient hospital plus outpatient surgical gross revenue per year. Musculoskeletal, circulatory and digestive category elective surgical cases compose 33% ($447B) of total revenue. Conclusions Procedures involving the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular and digestive system account for the largest loss of hospital gross revenue when elective surgery is postponed. As hospital bed capacity increases following the COVID-19 pandemic, restoring volume of these elective cases will help maintain revenue. In these estimates, adopting universal masking would help to avoid overcapacity in all states.

Skorupski et al present several facts about preoperative anemia in major elective surgery. An estimated 23%-45% of patients undergoing major surgery have anemia, with the most common causes being iron deficiency anemia and anemia of inflammation or chronic disease.

Preoperative anxiety is a common yet often neglected problem for patients undergoing surgery. Virtual reality (VR)-based intervention is a promising alternative with benefits for managing preoperative anxiety. However, the components of VR-based intervention and its effectiveness on preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing elective surgery with anesthesia remain unclear. This study aimed to identify the major components (ie, device, medium, format, and duration) of VR-based interventions and summarize evidence regarding their effectiveness in reducing preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing elective surgery with anesthesia. Allied and Complementary Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong Full Text Journals, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, EMBASE, MEDLINE via OvidSP, PubMed, PsychINFO, Scopus, China Journal Net, and WanFang Data Chinese Dissertations Database were searched from inception to February 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of VR-based interventions for patients undergoing elective surgery with anesthesia were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for risk of bias assessment. A random effect model was used for pooling the results. A total of 35 RCTs with 3341 patients (female: n=1474, 44.1%) were included in this review, of which 29 RCTs were included for meta-analysis. Compared with usual care, VR-based interventions showed substantial benefits in decreasing preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing elective surgery (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.65, 95% CI 0.37-0.92; P<.001). Regarding the subgroup analysis, VR-based intervention showed significant but moderate effects on preoperative anxiety in the pediatric population (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.22; P<.001) compared to the adult population (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.23-0.93; P=.001). The distraction approach showed more significant effects (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.24-1.21; P=.004) on preoperative anxiety than the exposure approach (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.27-0.95; P<.001). Patients undergoing elective surgery with anesthesia may benefit from VR as a novel alternative to reduce preoperative anxiety, especially pediatric patients via the distraction approach. However, more rigorous research is needed to confirm VR's effectiveness.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common among surgical patients, and patients with COPD have higher risk for complications and death within 30 days after surgery. We sought to describe the longer-term postoperative survival and costs of patients with COPD compared with those without COPD within 1 year after inpatient elective surgery. In this retrospective population-based cohort study, we used linked health administrative databases to identify all patients undergoing inpatient elective surgery in Ontario, Canada, from 2005 to 2019. We ascertained COPD status using validated definitions. We followed participants for 1 year after surgery to evaluate survival and costs to the health system. We quantified the association of COPD with survival (Cox proportional hazards models) and costs (linear regression model with log-transformed costs) with partial adjustment (for sociodemographic factors and procedure type) and full adjustment (also adjusting for comorbidities). We assessed for effect modification by frailty, cancer and procedure type. We included 932 616 patients, of whom 170 482 (18%) had COPD. With respect to association with risk of death, COPD had a partially adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58–1.64), and a fully adjusted HR of 1.26 (95% CI 1.24–1.29). With respect to impact on health system costs, COPD was associated with a partially adjusted relative increase of 13.1% (95% CI 12.7%–13.4%), and an increase of 4.6% (95% CI 4.3%–5.0%) with full adjustment. Frailty, cancer and procedure type (such as orthopedic and lower abdominal surgery) modified the association between COPD and outcomes. Patients with COPD have decreased survival and increased costs in the year after surgery. Frailty, cancer and the type of surgical procedure modified associations between COPD and outcomes, and must be considered when risk-stratifying surgical patients with COPD.