Search

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of surgeon-anesthesiologist sex discordance on postoperative outcomes.Optimal surgical outcomes depend on teamwork, with surgeons and anesthesiologists forming two key components. There are sex and sex-based differences in interpersonal communication and medical practice which may contribute to patients' perioperative outcomes.We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study among adult patients undergoing 1 of 25 common elective or emergent surgical procedures from 2007 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We assessed the association between differences in sex between surgeon and anesthesiologists (sex discordance) on the primary endpoint of adverse postoperative outcome, defined as death, readmission, or complication within 30 days following surgery using generalized estimating equations.Among 1,165,711 patients treated by 3006 surgeons and 1477 anesthesiologists, 791,819 patients were treated by sex concordant teams (male surgeon/male anesthesiologist: 747,327 and female surgeon/female anesthesiologist: 44,492), whereas 373,892 were sex discordant (male surgeon/female anesthesiologist: 267,330 and female surgeon/male anesthesiologist: 106,562). Overall, 12.3% of patients experienced1 adverse postoperative outcomes of whom 1.3% died. Sex discordance between surgeon and anesthesiologist was not associated with a significant increased likelihood of composite adverse postoperative outcomes (adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.03).We did not demonstrate an association between intraoperative surgeon and anesthesiologist sex discordance on adverse postoperative outcomes in a large patient cohort. Patients, clinicians, and administrators may be reassured that physician sex discordance in operating room teams is unlikely to clinically meaningfully affect patient outcomes after surgery.

Context.—Data regarding the clinical impact of subspecialist pathology review of appendiceal neoplasms are limited.Objective.—To determine whether pathology review by gastrointestinal pathologists at a tertiary-care referral center resulted in significant changes in the diagnosis and clinical management of appendiceal neoplastic lesions.Design.—We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with an initial diagnosis of appendiceal neoplasm referred to a tertiary-care referral center in Ontario, Canada, from 2010–2016. The discordance rate between original and review pathology reports, the nature of discordances, and the impact of any discordance on patient management were recorded.Results.—A total of 145 patients with appendiceal lesions were identified (low-grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm [n = 79], invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma [n = 12], “colorectal type” adenocarcinoma [n = 12], goblet cell carcinoid and adenocarcinomas ex goblet cell carcinoid [n = 24], and other lesions/neoplasms [n = 20]). One or more changes in diagnoses were found in 36 of 145 cases (24.8%), with changes within the same category of interpretation (n = 10), stage (n = 7), grade (n = 6), and categoric interpretation (n = 5) being the most common. In 10 of 36 patients (28%), the diagnostic change led to a significant change in management, including recommendation for additional surveillance, systemic chemotherapy, additional surgery, or discontinuation of surveillance.Conclusions.—Subspecialist pathology review of appendiceal neoplastic lesions led to a change in diagnosis in 36 of 145 cases (24.8%), of which nearly 30% (10 of 36 cases) led to a change in clinical management. The overall rate of clinically significant discordances was 7% (10 of 145). Our findings suggest that subspecialist pathology review of appendiceal neoplasms referred to specialized centers is justified.