Individual and combined soy isoflavones exert differential effects on metastatic cancer progression

To investigate the effects soy isoflavones in established cancers, the role of genistein, daidzein, and combined soy isoflavones was studied on progression of subcutaneous tumors in nude mice created from green fluorescent protein (GFP) tagged-MDA-MB-435 cells. Following tumor establishment, mice were gavaged with vehicle or genistein or daidzein at 10 mg/kg body weight (BW) or a combination of genistein (10 mg/kg BW), daidzein (9 mg/kg BW), and glycitein (1 mg/kg BW) three times per week. Tumor progression was quantified by whole body fluorescence image analysis followed by microscopic image analysis of excised organs for metastases. Results show that daidzein increased while genistein decreased mammary tumor growth by 38 and 33% respectively, compared to vehicle. Daidzein increased lung and heart metastases while genistein decreased bone and liver metastases. Combined soy isoflavones did not affect primary tumor growth but increased metastasis to all organs tested, which include lung, liver, heart, kidney, and bones. Phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PI3-K) pathway real time PCR array analysis and western blotting of excised tumors demonstrate that genistein significantly downregulated 10/84 genes, including the Rho GTPases RHOA, RAC1, and CDC42 and their effector PAK1. Daidzein significantly upregulated 9/84 genes that regulate proliferation and protein synthesis including EIF4G1, eIF4E, and survivin protein levels. Combined soy treatment significantly increased gene and protein levels of EIF4E and decreased TIRAP gene expression. Differential regulation of Rho GTPases, initiation factors, and survivin may account for the disparate responses of breast cancers to genistein and daidzein diets. This study indicates that consumption of soy foods may increase metastasis

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Work-related musculoskeletal complaints and ergonomic risk factors among Egyptian anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Anesthesiologists are vulnerable to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) due to sustained repetitive movements and awkward postures. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of WMSDs among anesthesiologists and to evaluate its association with ergonomic risk factors. Methods A convenience sample of 380 Egyptian anesthesiologists were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study through an electronic questionnaire. Data were collected from May to August 2022 and involved questions about participants’ demographic, health, and work-related characteristics; the ergonomic risks and perceived hazards; and the musculoskeletal complaints during the past 12 months and 7 days - using Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ). Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistical analyses were used to estimate the prevalence of MSD and identify its determinants in the studied sample. Results A total of 215 anesthesiologists were included in this study, with a 56.8% response rate, 66% males with an average age of 38 (± 0.7) years. 21% were resident physicians, 47% were specialists, and 32% were consultants. The 12-month prevalence of MSD among anesthesiologists was 71.6% (95% CI: 65.6– 77.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that the main determinants of MSD among the studied sample were age of 45-years and older (OR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.21–8.52, p = 0.018), regular physical exercise (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10–0.65, p = 0.005), insufficient rest time between procedures (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.15–4.41, p = 0.018), and three or more awkward postures of the trunk (OR: 3.55, 95% CI: 1.43–8.82, p = 0.006). Conclusions The study highlights a high prevalence of WMSDs among Egyptian anesthesiologists, linked to advancing age, lack of regular exercise, insufficient rest between procedures, and frequent awkward postures. Addressing these ergonomic risk factors through targeted workplace interventions is crucial for promoting the overall well-being of anesthesiologists and ensuring the provision of safe anesthesia services