Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
3,727
result(s) for
"Surgical Procedures, Operative - methods"
Sort by:
Safer Surgery
Owing to rising concern about patient safety, surgeons and anaesthetists have looked for ways of minimising adverse events. Clinicians have encouraged behavioural scientists to bring research techniques used in other industries into the operating theatre in order to study the behaviour of surgeons, nurses and anaesthetists. Safer Surgery presents one of the first collections of studies designed to understand the factors influencing safe and efficient surgical, anaesthetic and nursing practice.
eBook
The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample
BackgroundRobotic-assisted surgery (RAS) with its advantages continues to gain popularity among surgeons. This study analyzed the increased costs of RAS in common surgical procedures using the National Inpatient Sample.MethodsRetrospective analysis of the 2012–2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-NIS was performed for the following laparoscopic/robotic procedures: cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, right and left hemicolectomy, sigmoidectomy, abdominoperineal resection, and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Patients with additional concurrent procedures were excluded. Costs were compared between the laparoscopic procedures and their RAS counterparts. Total costs and charges for cholecystectomy (the most common procedure in the dataset) were compared based on the payer and characteristics of hospital (region, rural/urban, bed size, and ownership).ResultsA total of 91,630 surgeries (87,965 laparoscopic, 3665 robotic) were analyzed. The average cost for the laparoscopic group was $10,227 ± $4986 versus $12,340 ± $5880 for the robotic cases (p < 0.001). The overall and percentage increases for laparoscopic versus robotic for each procedure were as follows: cholecystectomy $9618 versus $10,944 (14%), ventral hernia repair $10,739 versus $13,441 (25%), right colectomy $12,516 versus $15,027 (20%), left colectomy $14,157 versus $17,493 (24%), sigmoidectomy $13,504 versus $16,652 (23%), abdominoperineal resection $17,708 versus $19,605 (11%), and TAH $9368 versus $9923 (6%). Hysterectomy was the only procedure performed primarily using RAS and it was found to have the lowest increase in costs. Increased costs were associated with even higher increases in charges, especially in investor-owned private hospitals.ConclusionRAS is more costly when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Additional costs may be lower in centers that perform a higher volume of RAS. Further analysis of long-term outcomes (including reoperations and readmissions) is needed to better compare the life-long treatment costs for both surgical approaches.
Journal Article
Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality; however, audits suggest that the use of thromboprophylaxis is underused. In this review, we describe our approach to prevention of postoperative VTE and provide guidance on how to formulate an optimal VTE prophylaxis plan. We recommend that all patients undergo thrombosis- and bleeding-risk assessment as part of their preoperative evaluation. The risk of thrombosis can be estimated based on patient- and procedure-specific factors, using validated risk-assessment models such as the Caprini score. There are no validated models to predict perioperative bleeding; however, several risk factors have been proposed. Patients should ambulate early and frequently after surgery. We recommend no additional prophylaxis in patients at very low risk of VTE (Caprini score 0). Patients at low risk of VTE (Caprini 1 to 2) are recommended to receive either mechanical or pharmacological prophylaxis. Patients at moderate (Caprini 3 to 4) to high risk of VTE (Caprini ≥5) are recommended pharmacological prophylaxis either alone or combined with mechanical prophylaxis. Patients at high risk of bleeding should receive mechanical prophylaxis until their risk of bleeding is reduced and pharmacological prophylaxis can be reconsidered. Populations for which the Caprini score has not been validated (such as orthopedic surgery) are recommended prophylaxis based on individual and procedure-specific risk factors. Prophylaxis is typically continued until the patient is ambulatory or until hospital dismissal; however, longer durations can be considered in certain circumstances (high-risk patients undergoing malignant abdominopelvic operations, bariatric operations, and certain orthopedic operations).
Journal Article
High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial
The role of positive end-expiratory pressure in mechanical ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery remains uncertain. Levels of pressure higher than 0 cm H2O might protect against postoperative pulmonary complications but could also cause intraoperative circulatory depression and lung injury from overdistension. We tested the hypothesis that a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment manoeuvres protects against postoperative pulmonary complications in patients at risk of complications who are receiving mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery.
In this randomised controlled trial at 30 centres in Europe and North and South America, we recruited 900 patients at risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were planned for open abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia and ventilation at tidal volumes of 8 mL/kg. We randomly allocated patients to either a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure (12 cm H2O) with recruitment manoeuvres (higher PEEP group) or a low level of pressure (≤2 cm H2O) without recruitment manoeuvres (lower PEEP group). We used a centralised computer-generated randomisation system. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. Primary endpoint was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications by postoperative day 5. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The study is registered at Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN70332574.
From February, 2011, to January, 2013, 447 patients were randomly allocated to the higher PEEP group and 453 to the lower PEEP group. Six patients were excluded from the analysis, four because they withdrew consent and two for violation of inclusion criteria. Median levels of positive end-expiratory pressure were 12 cm H2O (IQR 12–12) in the higher PEEP group and 2 cm H2O (0–2) in the lower PEEP group. Postoperative pulmonary complications were reported in 174 (40%) of 445 patients in the higher PEEP group versus 172 (39%) of 449 patients in the lower PEEP group (relative risk 1·01; 95% CI 0·86–1·20; p=0·86). Compared with patients in the lower PEEP group, those in the higher PEEP group developed intraoperative hypotension and needed more vasoactive drugs.
A strategy with a high level of positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment manoeuvres during open abdominal surgery does not protect against postoperative pulmonary complications. An intraoperative protective ventilation strategy should include a low tidal volume and low positive end-expiratory pressure, without recruitment manoeuvres.
Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam, Netherlands), European Society of Anaesthesiology.
Journal Article
Essentials of Our Current Understanding: Abdominal Wall Blocks
Abdominal wall blocks rely on the spread of local anesthetic within musculofascial planes to anesthetize multiple small nerves or plexuses, rather than targeting specific nerve structures. Ultrasonography is primarily responsible for the widespread adoption of techniques including transversus abdominis plane and rectus sheath blocks, as well as the introduction of novel techniques such as quadratus lumborum and transversalis fascia blocks. These blocks are technically straightforward and relatively safe and reduce pain and opioid requirements in many clinical settings. The data supporting these outcomes, however, can be inconsistent because of heterogeneity of study design. The extent of sensory blockade is also somewhat variable, because it depends on the achieved spread of local anesthetic and the anatomical course of the nerves being targeted. The blocks mainly provide somatic analgesia and are best used as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen. This review summarizes the anatomical, sonographic, and technical aspects of the abdominal wall blocks in current use, examining the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of each.
Journal Article
Surgery in COVID-19 patients: operational directives
The current COVID-19 pandemic underlines the importance of a mindful utilization of financial and human resources. Preserving resources and manpower is paramount in healthcare. It is important to ensure the ability of surgeons and specialized professionals to function through the pandemic. A conscious effort should be made to minimize infection in this sector. A high mortality rate within this group would be detrimental.
This manuscript is the result of a collaboration between the major Italian surgical and anesthesiologic societies: ACOI, SIC, SICUT, SICO, SICG, SIFIPAC, SICE, and SIAARTI. We aim to describe recommended clinical pathways for COVID-19-positive patients requiring acute non-deferrable surgical care. All hospitals should organize dedicated protocols and workforce training as part of the effort to face the current pandemic.
Journal Article
Emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what you need to know for practice
Several articles have been published about the reorganisation of surgical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic but few, if any, have focused on the impact that this has had on emergency and trauma surgery. Our aim was to review the most current data on COVID-19 to provide essential suggestions on how to manage the acute abdomen during the pandemic.
A systematic review was conducted of the most relevant English language articles on COVID-19 and surgery published between 15 December 2019 and 30 March 2020.
Access to the operating theatre is almost exclusively restricted to emergencies and oncological procedures. The use of laparoscopy in COVID-19 positive patients should be cautiously considered. The main risk lies in the presence of the virus in the pneumoperitoneum: the aerosol released in the operating theatre could contaminate both staff and the environment.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, all efforts should be deployed in order to evaluate the feasibility of postponing surgery until the patient is no longer considered potentially infectious or at risk of perioperative complications. If surgery is deemed necessary, the emergency surgeon must minimise the risk of exposure to the virus by involving a minimal number of healthcare staff and shortening the occupation of the operating theatre. In case of a lack of security measures to enable safe laparoscopy, open surgery should be considered.
Journal Article
