A peripherally inserted central catheter misplacement into lateral thoracic vein: A case report

IntroductionCentral venous catheter applications and complications are closely related to the tip position. Previous studies have reported some rare cases of catheter misplacement. Here, we report a case of misplacement of a peripherally inserted central catheter into the lateral thoracic vein.Case reportA 56-year-old cancer patient underwent placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter through the left basilic vein under ultrasound-guided puncture. The catheterisation procedure was uneventful, so the catheter was believed to be in the superior vena cava. However, the post-anterior chest X-ray image revealed that after the catheter advanced towards the axilla, it turned downwards and outwards in the direction of the left lateral thoracic region, with the projection of the catheter tip giving the appearance of termination in the subcutaneous tissue of the lateral thoracic wall on the two-dimensional image. The catheter was then repositioned in the distal superior vena cava.DiscussionPeripherally inserted central catheters can be potentially misplaced into the lateral thoracic vein because these catheters can pass through the orifice of the lateral thoracic vein which flows into the axillary vein. Some pathological cases and clinical conditions can cause dilatation of the lateral thoracic vein, which increases the probability of catheter misplacement. Three principles were proposed to avoid this rare complication: a comprehensive review of the patients’ medical history, real-time image-guided catheterisation and routine radiographic identification of the tip position.     

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Breast Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put a strain on regular healthcare worldwide. In the Netherlands, the national screening programs, including for breast cancer, were halted temporarily. This posed a challenge to breast cancer care, because ∼40% of cases are detected through national screening. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the surgical care of patients with breast cancer in the Netherlands.Materials and MethodsThe present multicenter retrospective cohort study investigated the effects of COVID-19 on patients with breast cancer who had undergone surgery from March 9 to May 17, 2020. The primary endpoints were the number of surgical procedures performed during the study period, tumor characteristics, surgery type, and route of referral. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications during the study period.ResultsA total of 217 consecutive patients with breast cancer requiring surgery were included. We found an overall decrease in the number of patients with breast cancer who were undergoing surgery. The most significant decline was seen in surgery for T1-T2 and N0 tumors. A decline in the number of referrals from both the national screening program and general practitioners was observed. The incidence of postoperative complications remained stable during the study period.ConclusionsThe temporary halt of the national screening program for breast cancer resulted in fewer surgical procedures during the study period and a pronounced decrease in surgery of the lower tumor stages.     

Trends in revisional bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database 2015-2017

BackgroundThe third most common bariatric surgery is revisional bariatric surgery. The American College of Surgeons tracks outcomes using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database. We used this database to examine trends in revisional bariatric surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate how trends in bariatric revisional surgery have changed in recent years.SettingUniversity Hospital, United States.MethodsThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database for 2015 to 2017 was examined for revisions of bariatric surgery. Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery were identified by the primary Current Procedural Terminology code, the REVCONV and PREVIOUS_SURGERY field as well as secondary Current Procedural Terminology codes. There is no exact code for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), so we used 43644 (GB)+REVCONV+PREVIOUS_SURGERY for this.ResultsFor the years 2015 to 2017 there were 57,683 revisions/conversions of 528,081 patients. The number of revisions increased over the study period by 5213 cases. The most common revision was laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to SG with 15,433 cases and the second was LAGB to LRYGB with 10,485 cases. There were 14,715 LAGB removals. It is more difficult to track SG to LRYGB but there were 8491 unlisted cases, which may have been sleeve to bypass.ConclusionLAGBs are being taken out or converted, and this group makes up the largest portion of revisions and conversions. It is difficult to track SG to LRYGB, but the number of unlisted cases continues to climb. This will likely surpass LAGB conversions with time. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program should be modified to capture revisions/conversions of SG.     

Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized,clinical trial

Background

Controversy continues as to whether single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with the somewhat larger incision at the umbilicus, may lead to a worse postoperative quality of life and more pain compared with the more classic 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the perspective of quality of life.

Learners’ acceptance of a webinar for continuing medical education

The aim of this study was to evaluate learners’ acceptance of a webinar for continuing medical education that was instigated by the International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (IAOMS). A live, interactive webinar on orthognathic surgery was broadcast via the Internet. The learners’ acceptance of the webinar was evaluated using a standardized, validated questionnaire (Student Evaluation of Educational Quality, SEEQ). One hundred and fifty-three participants attended the webinar; 55 participants (46 male, nine female) completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the respondents was 41.6 ± 10.0 years. The age of male and female respondents did not differ significantly. The respondents were spread over five continents, with the highest number from Brazil. The SEEQ showed a high level of acceptance for almost all subscales. There was no statistically significant difference between male and female respondents concerning acceptance of the webinar (P = 0.614). The wide distribution of participants shows the potential for webinars as facilitators of barrier-free distribution of knowledge. The webinar was well accepted by the attendees independent of sex, specialty, and work experience. However, the sex ratio reflects the underrepresentation of women in oral and maxillofacial surgery.     

Patient Perspectives on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgery: A Focus on Sexual Health

BackgroundIn the last decade, many novel minimally invasive surgical techniques within benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgery were developed to reduce postoperative complications that often discourage patients from pursuing BPH surgery.AimTo assess perspective of future and past international BPH surgery patients regarding their postoperative complications, namely erectile and ejaculatory function.MethodsA survey was distributed randomly to 2 groups of BPH patients: one with 149 patients having undergone surgery in the last 2 years (group A), and the other cohort of 151 men seriously considering BPH surgery in the next year (group B). This survey consisted of 20 questions that assessed patients' motivating factors for undergoing elective BPH surgery and their perspectives regarding the potential postoperative complications attributed to BPH surgery.OutcomesThe perspective of future and past international BPH surgical patients towards the preservation of their erectile and ejaculatory functions was assessed with the help of a survey.ResultsResults indicated that in general BPH surgery patients considered the maintenance of erectile (95%, n = 284) and ejaculatory function (92%, n = 276) to be important preoperative considerations, regardless of their age. Patients aged 50–59 years were most concerned with the permanent impact on sexual function and patients aged >60 years were most concerned with urinary incontinence. In patients aged >70 years, 66% (n = 43) and 62% (n = 40) of the respondents indicated that maintaining erectile and ejaculatory function was important, respectively.Clinical ImplicationsPatient-centered care needs to be implemented in order to address the importance that past and future BPH surgery patients hold toward the maintenance of their postoperative sexual function.Strengths & LimitationsIn the group of patients having previously undergone BPH surgery, the possibility of recall bias should be taken into account when interpreting the study's findings. However, maintaining sexual function was also important for the group of patients seriously considering surgery in the next year suggesting that these considerations are not solely due to recall bias. Additionally, the results were limited by the small sample size of participants in groups A (n = 149) and B (n = 151).ConclusionIt was found that past and future BPH surgery patients attribute a significant importance toward the maintenance of their sexual function. Although novel approaches with better sexual outcomes such as Rezum and UroLift for prostates <80 mL, and Aquablation for any size prostate are available, more research is needed to investigate their long-term effects on sexual function before they can be recommended to patients.Bouhadana D, Nguyen D-D, Zorn KC, et al. Patient Perspectives on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgery: A Focus on Sexual Health. J Sex Med 2020;17:2108–2112.