Narrative operative reports inconsistently record surgical information relating to resection of soft tissue sarcomas and mast cell tumors in dogs

Meaghan O’Neill Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Search for other papers by Meaghan O’Neill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Brandan G. Wustefeld-Janssens Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Search for other papers by Brandan G. Wustefeld-Janssens in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVSc, DECVS
,
Giovanni Tremolada Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Search for other papers by Giovanni Tremolada in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DACVS, DECVS
, and
Maureen Griffin Department of Clinical Sciences and Advanced Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA

Search for other papers by Maureen Griffin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DACVS

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To report to what degree narrative operative reports for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and mast cell tumor (MCT) resections met a predetermined template made up of essential elements.

ANIMALS

197 consecutive client-owned animals between May 1, 2017, and August 1, 2022.

PROCEDURES

A consensus list of 9 elements made up the final synoptic operative report (SR) template. Consecutive narrative surgery reports (NRs) of dogs that underwent MCT or STS resection were then reviewed to determine how many of the SR elements were present in each NR. A score was then determined for each NR out of a maximum total of 9.

RESULTS

Overall, 197 reports (99 MCT and 98 STS) were included. The median score was 5 (56% of elements reported). No report had all 9 elements, and 1 report had none of the elements reported. When MCT and STS were analyzed independently, the median score was 6 (67% of elements reported) for MCT and 5 (56% of elements reported) for STS. There was a trend of more cases with MCT that had a preoperative diagnosis, intraoperative measurements of the tumor, and surgeon margins marked compared to dogs with STS. More dogs with STS had an estimated Enneking dose compared to dogs with MCT.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our data show that essential elements of STS and MCT resection in dogs were inconsistently recorded and no case had all elements present. This mirrors data in people and presses the need for more standardization in reporting of cancer operations in veterinary medicine.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To report to what degree narrative operative reports for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and mast cell tumor (MCT) resections met a predetermined template made up of essential elements.

ANIMALS

197 consecutive client-owned animals between May 1, 2017, and August 1, 2022.

PROCEDURES

A consensus list of 9 elements made up the final synoptic operative report (SR) template. Consecutive narrative surgery reports (NRs) of dogs that underwent MCT or STS resection were then reviewed to determine how many of the SR elements were present in each NR. A score was then determined for each NR out of a maximum total of 9.

RESULTS

Overall, 197 reports (99 MCT and 98 STS) were included. The median score was 5 (56% of elements reported). No report had all 9 elements, and 1 report had none of the elements reported. When MCT and STS were analyzed independently, the median score was 6 (67% of elements reported) for MCT and 5 (56% of elements reported) for STS. There was a trend of more cases with MCT that had a preoperative diagnosis, intraoperative measurements of the tumor, and surgeon margins marked compared to dogs with STS. More dogs with STS had an estimated Enneking dose compared to dogs with MCT.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our data show that essential elements of STS and MCT resection in dogs were inconsistently recorded and no case had all elements present. This mirrors data in people and presses the need for more standardization in reporting of cancer operations in veterinary medicine.

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Wustefeld-Janssens (brandan.janssens@colostate.edu)
  • 1.

    Brodbelt D. Retrospective studies: the good, the bad or the ugly? J Small Anim Pract. 2009;50(11):565-566. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00861.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Schmidt PL. Evidence-based veterinary medicine: evolution, revolution, or repackaging of veterinary practice? Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2007;37(3):409-417. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2007.01.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Soegaard Ballester JM, Goodsell KE, Ermer JP, et al.New operative reporting standards: where we stand now and opportunities for innovation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(3):1797-1804. doi:10.1245/s10434-021-10766-9

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Harvey A, Zhang H, Nixon J, Brown CJ. Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control. Surgery. 2007;141(6):708-714. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2007.01.022

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Eryigit Ö, van de Graaf FW, Lange JF. A systematic review on the synoptic operative report versus the narrative operative report in surgery. World J Surg. 2019;43(9):2175-2185. doi:10.1007/s00268-019-05017-8

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Wiebe ME, Sandhu L, Takata JL, et al.Quality of narrative operative reports in pancreatic surgery. Can J Surg. 2013;56(5):E121-E127. doi:10.1503/cjs.028611

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Stewart L, Hunter JG, Wetter A, Chin B, Way LW. Operative reports: form and function. Arch Surg. 2010;145(9):865-871. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.157

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Hieken TJ, Burns WR, Francescatti AB, Morris AM, Wong SL; Cancer Surgery Standards Program of the American College of Surgeons. Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: improving patient care through synoptic operative reporting. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(11):6526-6533. doi:10.1245/s10434-022-11330-9

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Katz MHG, Francescatti AB, Hunt KK; Cancer Surgery Standards Program of the American College of Surgeons. Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(11):6549-6558. doi:10.1245/s10434-022-11375-w

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Kanters AE, Vu JV, Schuman AD, et al.Completeness of operative reports for rectal cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 2020;220(1):165-169. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.036

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, Stuart GC. The computer synoptic operative report-a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(10):941-947. doi:10.1245/ASO.2004.12.045

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wouters E, van Nimwegen S, Ryan S, Kirpensteijn J. Skin and subcutaneous tumors. In: Kudnig ST, Séguin B, eds. Veterinary Surgical Oncology. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2022. doi:10.1002/9781119089124.ch4

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;(153):106-120. doi:10.1097/00003086-198011000-00013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Saunders H, Thomson MJ, O’Connell K, Bridges JP, Chau L. Evaluation of a modified proportional margin approach for complete surgical excision of canine cutaneous mast cell tumours and its association with clinical outcome. Vet Comp Oncol. 2021;19(4):604-615. doi:10.1111/vco.12630

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement