How to identify a high-risk surgical patient?

Anesthetic management for lower extremity vascular bypass procedures: The impact of general or regional anesthesia on clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Postoperative complications after major surgery, especially vascular procedures, are associated with a significant increase in costs and mortality. Previous studies evaluating general anesthesia versus regional or neuraxial anesthesia for infrainguinal bypass have produced conflicting results. The main aim of the present study is to review current evidence on the application of regional or general anesthesia in patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery and its potential favorable effects on postoperative outcomes.

CONTENTS

Patients undergoing vascular surgery often have multiple comorbidities, and it is important to outline both benefits and risks of regional anesthesia techniques. Neuraxial anesthesia in vascular surgery allows overall avoidance of general anesthesia and does provide short-term benefits beyond analgesia. Previous observational studies suggest that neuraxial anesthesia for lower limb revascularization may reduce morbidity and length of stay. However, evidence of long-term benefits is lacking in most procedures and further work is still warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial anesthesia is usually an effective anesthesia technique for infrainguinal bypass surgery. Elderly patients and those with underlying respiratory problems may display some benefit from neuraxial anesthesia. Further evaluation within institutions should be performed to identify which patients would most benefit from regional techniques. Notably, systemic antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy is common among this population and may affect anesthetic choices.

An interrater reliability analysis of preoperative mortality risk calculators used for elective high-risk noncardiac surgical patients shows poor to moderate reliability

BACKGROUND

Multiple preoperative calculators are available online to predict preoperative mortality risk for noncardiac surgical patients. However, it is currently unknown how these risk calculators perform across different raters. The current study investigated the interrater reliability of three preoperative mortality risk calculators in an elective high-risk noncardiac surgical patient population to evaluate if these calculators can be safely used for identification of high-risk noncardiac surgical patients for a preoperative multidisciplinary team discussion.

METHODS

Five anesthesiologists assessed the preoperative mortality risk of 34 high-risk patients using the preoperative score to calculate postoperative mortality risks (POSPOM), the American College of Surgeons surgical risk calculator (SRC), and the surgical outcome risk tool (SORT). In total, 170 calculations per calculator were gathered.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability was poor for SORT (ICC (C.I. 95%) = 0.46 (0.30-0.63)) and moderate for SRC (ICC = 0.65 (0.51-0.78)) and POSPOM (ICC = 0.63 (0.49-0.77). The absolute range of calculated mortality risk was 0.2-72% for POSPOM, 0-36% for SRC, and 0.4-17% for SORT. The coefficient of variation increased in higher risk classes for POSPOM and SORT. The extended Bland-Altman limits of agreement suggested that all raters contributed to the variation in calculated risks.

CONCLUSION

The current results indicate that the preoperative risk calculators POSPOM, SRC, and SORT exhibit poor to moderate interrater reliability. These calculators are not sufficiently accurate for clinical identification and preoperative counseling of high-risk surgical patients. Clinicians should be trained in using mortality risk calculators. Also, clinicians should be cautious when using predicted mortality estimates from these calculators to identify high-risk noncardiac surgical patients for elective surgery.

Impact of Surgical Timing on Fracture Healing in Tibial Shaft Injuries: A Comparative Review of Intramedullary Nailing Techniques

Tibial shaft fractures are a prevalent and challenging orthopedic injury, often resulting from high-energy trauma. Optimal management of these fractures is crucial to prevent complications such as nonunion, malunion, and prolonged functional impairment. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is widely regarded as the gold standard for treating these injuries due to its ability to provide stable fixation, preserve soft tissues, and enable early mobilization. However, the timing of surgical intervention remains a topic of ongoing debate. Early surgical intervention, defined as surgery within 24-48 hours of injury, is advocated for its potential to reduce hospital stay, facilitate early mobilization, and decrease the risk of secondary complications such as compartment syndrome. Conversely, delayed intervention allows for patient stabilization and reduction of soft tissue swelling, potentially lowering the risk of infection and other complications. This comprehensive review aims to evaluate the impact of surgical timing on fracture healing outcomes in tibial shaft fractures treated with IMN. It explores the benefits and limitations of early versus delayed surgery, emphasizing their influence on union rates, healing time, and complication rates. Furthermore, the review examines different IMN techniques, including reamed versus unreamed and static versus dynamic nailing, to determine their role in optimizing fracture healing. By synthesizing current evidence, this review provides critical insights into the optimal timing and technique for IMN in tibial shaft fractures, ultimately aiming to guide clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to establish standardized surgical timing and technique selection guidelines in this patient population.

Treatment Options for Early Stage Inoperable Breast Cancer: Cryoablation or Radiotherapy?

Background

Surgical removal of the tumour is the gold standard treatment for early stage invasive breast cancer. However, with a global ageing population, a larger number of diagnoses are occurring in women with comorbidities that render them unsuitable for surgery. Hence, it is of interest to explore alternative treatment strategies for this group of women.

Summary

Our narrative review aims to explore two such techniques, cryoablation and external beam radiotherapy, providing a brief summary of the evidence behind each technique. Following this, we discuss which groups of patients would gain the most benefit from each technique. Factors favouring the use of radiotherapy include patients with larger tumours, more superficial tumours, and those with less well-demarcated tumours where there is uncertainty regarding tumour extent. Meanwhile, patients who may benefit more from cryoablation include those who desire a smaller number of treatment sessions, have concerns regarding cosmesis and skin pigmentation, or who have relative contraindications to radiotherapy such as scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, reduced lung function, or cardiac comorbidities.

Key Messages

Continued advancements in both cryoablation and radiotherapy technologies are taking place, in tandem with imaging technologies enabling greater certainty in tumour detection and delineation. These factors will help increase local control rates in this group of non-operable early stage breast cancer patients. Through this review, we hope to aid in the clinical decision-making process regarding the selection and referral of patients for each treatment.