Prevalence and Predictors of Quality of Recovery at Home After Day Surgery

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL).The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day.Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery.A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models.The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.     

Quality of Regional Nodal Irradiation Plans in Breast Cancer Patients Across a Large Network—Can We Translate Results From Randomized Trials Into the Clinic?

PurposeRegional nodal irradiation (RNI) improved disease-free survival by 3% to 5% in 2 large randomized trials, but this small absolute advantage relies on accurate contouring and dose delivery. We audited our network to determine compliance on regional nodal coverage, contouring, and dosimetric parameters with respect to accepted guidelines.Methods and MaterialsIn our network, we have established a clinical pathway for patients with node-positive breast cancer that guides indications for RNI and dosimetric goals. We reviewed records of 183 patients with nodal macrometastases after upfront surgery or involved nodes of any size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiation treatment plans were examined to determine lymph node volumes treated, whether nodes were contoured, quality of nodal contours, and whether target coverage and normal organ dosimetric constraints were met when RNI was delivered.ResultsDespite the presence of macrometastases on sentinel lymph node biopsy, no lymph nodes were treated in 2.2% (4 of 183). Of 179 patients who received nodal irradiation, 18 received radiation to axillary levels 1 and 2 only, and 161 patients received RNI. Overall, regional nodes were not treated despite strong indications in 7.6% (14 of 183). Treated nodes were not contoured for 2.2% (4 of 179), and lymph node contours were unacceptable in 15.4% (27 of 175). Of patients receiving RNI, 14.9% (24 of 161) did not have adequate nodal target volume coverage, mean heart dose was >4 Gy for 3.1% (5 of 161), and lung V20 Gy was >35% for 8.7% (14 of 161).ConclusionsAdherence to indications for regional nodal treatment was high, but nodes were either not contoured or had unacceptable contour quality in 18% of plans, and coverage was inadequate in 15%. Because the small disease-free survival advantage seen in trials may be decreased with these deviations, routine clinical practice requires detailed peer review to fully translate results of clinical trials.