Enteral stenting versus gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Background and aims

Endoscopic placement of enteral self-expandable metallic stents is an alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ) for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Factors associated with clinical outcomes are not known. The aims of this study are to compare the overall complication rate and effectiveness (duration of oral intake) between endoscopic stenting (ES) and GJ in patients with GOO and identify predictors of clinical outcomes.

Patients and methods

This was a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary academic center. Patients who underwent ES or GJ for treatment of GOO between 1/2001 and 12/2010 were identified using an institutional claims database. The electronic medical records for each patient were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to study the association of treatment outcomes with patient factors and cancer therapy.

Results

120 patients had ES while 227 had GJ. Technical success was higher for GJ (99 vs. 96 %, p = 0.004). Complication rates were higher in the GJ group (22.10 vs. 11.66 %, p = 0.02). Reintervention was more common with ES [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 9.18, p < 0.0001]. Mean length of hospital stay (LOHS) was shorter (adjusted p = 0.005) in the ES compared with the GJ group. However, mean hospital charges, including reinterventions, were greater in the ES group (US $34,250 vs. US $27,599, p = 0.03). ES and GJ had comparable reintervention-free time in patients who had reintervention (88 vs. 106 days, respectively, p = 0.79). Chemotherapy [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3 > 0.57, p = 0.04] and radiation therapy (adjusted HR 0.35, p = 0.03) were associated with significantly longer duration of oral intake after ES or GJ.

Conclusion

ES is associated with fewer complications, shorter LOHS, but higher reintervention rates and overall charges.     

Unusual histological variant of Ewing's sarcoma of mandible

Ewing family of tumors (EFTs) comprise highly malignant, nearly undifferentiated neoplasms including Ewing's sarcoma (ES), primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and a spectrum of other unusual variants. In general, EFTs are included among small blue cell tumors. Establishing histological diagnosis can be difficult; CD99 and FLI1 immunohistochemical staining has improved diagnosis, but these markers are not specific for EFTs. The diagnosis of EFTs is confirmed by molecular diagnostic testing showing the presence of established rearrangements of the EWS gene. The use of this molecular signature in EFTs revealed rare variants in the histomorphologic spectrum of these tumors. The authors report an unusual variant of EFT in the mandible of a 17-year-old patient, which was confirmed by translocation rearrangement in EWR1 gene at 22q12 by fluorescence in situ hybridization. The unusual histologic features, with prominent spindling of tumor cells and deviation from the classic features of Ewing's sarcoma posed a diagnostic challenge for the medical centers involved in the diagnosis and treatment of this patient. This highlights the importance of the genetic study of undifferentiated sarcomas to identify rare morphologic variants of ES, in view of the chemosensitivity of EFTs and how this affects patient management.     

Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care

BACKGROUND: Communication errors are the primary factor contributing to all types of sentinel events including those involving surgical patients. One type of communication error is mislabeled specimens. The extent to which these errors occur is poorly quantified. We designed a study to measure the incidence and type of specimen identification errors in the surgical patient population. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study that included all patients who underwent surgery in an outpatient clinic or hospital operating room and for whom a pathology specimen was sent to the laboratory. The study took place during a 6-month period (October 2004 to April 2005) at an urban, academic medical center. The study's main end-points were the incidence and type of specimen labeling errors in the hospital operating room and the outpatient clinic. The specimen was the unit of analysis. All specimens were screened for "identification errors," which, for the purposes of this study, were defined as any discrepancy between information on the specimen requisition form and the accompanying labeled specimen received in the laboratory. Errors were stratified by the type of identification error, source, location, and type of procedure. RESULTS: A total of 21,351 surgical specimens were included in the analysis. There were 91 (4.3/1000) surgical specimen identification errors (18, specimen not labeled; 16, empty container; 16, laterality incorrect; 14, incorrect tissue site; 11, incorrect patient; 9, no patient name; and 7, no tissue site). Identification errors occurred in 0.512% of specimens originating from an outpatient clinic (53/10,354 specimens) and 0.346% of specimens originating from an operating room (38/10,997 specimens). Procedures involving the breast were the most common type to involve an identification error (breast = 11, skin = 10, colon = 8); in addition, 59.3% (54/91) of errors were associated with a biopsy procedure. Follow-up was complete in all cases found to have an identification error. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical specimen identification errors are common and pose important risks to all patients. In our study, these events occurred in 4.3 per 1000 surgical specimens or an annualized rate of occurrence of 182 mislabeled specimens per year. Given the frequency with which these errors occur and their potential effect on patients, the rate of surgical specimen identification errors may be an important measure of patient safety. Strategies to reduce the rate of these errors should be a research priority.     

Operating room briefings and wrong-site surgery

BACKGROUND: Wrong-site surgery can be a catastrophic event for a patient, caregiver, and institution. Although communication breakdowns have been identified as the leading cause of wrong-site surgery, the efficacy of preventive strategies remains unknown. This study evaluated the impact of operating room briefings on coordination of care and risk for wrong-site surgery. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a case-based version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to operating room (OR) staff at an academic medical center, before and after initiation of an OR briefing program. Items questioned overall coordination and awareness of the surgical site. Response options ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). MANOVA was used to compare caregiver assessments before and after the implementation of briefings, and the percentage of OR staff agreeing or disagreeing with each question was reported. RESULTS: The prebriefing response rate was 85% (306 of 360 respondents), and the postbriefing response rate was 75% (116 of 154). Respondents included surgeons (34.9%), anesthesiologists (14.0%), and nurses (44.4%). Briefings were associated with caregiver perceptions of reduced risk for wrong-site surgery and improved collaboration [F (6,390)=10.15, p < 0.001]. Operating room caregiver assessments of briefing and wrong-site surgery issues improved for 5 of 6 items, eg, "Surgery and anesthesia worked together as a well-coordinated team" (67.9% agreed prebriefing, 91.5% agreed postbriefing, p < 0.0001), and "A preoperative discussion increased my awareness of the surgical site and side being operated on" (52.4% agreed prebriefing, 64.4% agreed postbriefing, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OR briefings significantly reduce perceived risk for wrong-site surgery and improve perceived collaboration among OR personnel.