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

Post cholecystectomy bile duct injury: early, intermediate or late repair with hepaticojejunostomy – an E-AHPBA multi-center study

Background: Treatment of bile duct injuries (BDI)during cholecystectomy depends on the severity of injury and the timing of diagnosis. Standard of care for severe BDIs is hepaticojejunostomy. The aim of this retrospective multi-center study was to assess the optimal timing for repair of BDI with hepaticojejunostomy. Methods: Members of the European-African HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association were invited to report all consecutive patients with hepaticojejunostomy after BDI from January 2000 to June 2016. Patients were stratified according to the timing of biliary reconstruction with hepaticojejunostomy: early (day 0–7), intermediate (1–6 weeks)and late (6 weeks–6 months). Primary endpoint was re-intervention >90 days after the hepaticojejunostomy and secondary endpoints were severe 90-day complications and liver-related mortality. Results: In total 913 patients from 48 centers were included in the analysis. In 401 patients (44%)the bile duct injury was diagnosed intraoperatively, and 126 patients (14%)suffered from concomitant vascular injury. In multivariable analysis the timing of hepaticojejunostomy had no impact on postoperative complications, the need for re-intervention after 90 days nor liver-related mortality. The rate of re-intervention more than 90 days after the hepaticojejunostomy was significantly increased in male patients but decreased in older patients. Severe co-morbidity increased the risk for liver-related mortality (HR 3.439; CI 1.37–8.65; p = 0.009). Conclusion: After BDI occurring during cholecystectomy, the timing of biliary reconstruction with hepaticojejunostomy did not have any impact on severe postoperative complications, the need for re-intervention or liver-related mortality. Individualised treatment after iatrogenic bile duct injury is still advisable

Post cholecystectomy bile duct injury: early, intermediate or late repair with hepaticojejunostomy - an E-AHPBA multi-center study.

To access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink belowBACKGROUND: Treatment of bile duct injuries (BDI) during cholecystectomy depends on the severity of injury and the timing of diagnosis. Standard of care for severe BDIs is hepaticojejunostomy. The aim of this retrospective multi-center study was to assess the optimal timing for repair of BDI with hepaticojejunostomy. METHODS: Members of the European-African HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association were invited to report all consecutive patients with hepaticojejunostomy after BDI from January 2000 to June 2016. Patients were stratified according to the timing of biliary reconstruction with hepaticojejunostomy: early (day 0-7), intermediate (1-6 weeks) and late (6 weeks-6 months). Primary endpoint was re-intervention >90 days after the hepaticojejunostomy and secondary endpoints were severe 90-day complications and liver-related mortality. RESULTS: In total 913 patients from 48 centers were included in the analysis. In 401 patients (44%) the bile duct injury was diagnosed intraoperatively, and 126 patients (14%) suffered from concomitant vascular injury. In multivariable analysis the timing of hepaticojejunostomy had no impact on postoperative complications, the need for re-intervention after 90 days nor liver-related mortality. The rate of re-intervention more than 90 days after the hepaticojejunostomy was significantly increased in male patients but decreased in older patients. Severe co-morbidity increased the risk for liver-related mortality (HR 3.439; CI 1.37-8.65; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: After BDI occurring during cholecystectomy, the timing of biliary reconstruction with hepaticojejunostomy did not have any impact on severe postoperative complications, the need for re-intervention or liver-related mortality. Individualised treatment after iatrogenic bile duct injury is still advisable

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135–15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359–5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138–5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184–5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598–9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090–6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286–5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.912–7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138–0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143–0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990). Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

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 coprioritized 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

coMpliAnce with evideNce-based cliniCal guidelines in the managemenT of acute biliaRy pancreAtitis): The MANCTRA-1 international audit

Background/objectives: Reports about the implementation of recommendations from acute pancreatitis guidelines are scant. This study aimed to evaluate, on a patient-data basis, the contemporary practice patterns of management of biliary acute pancreatitis and to compare these practices with the recommendations by the most updated guidelines. Methods: All consecutive patients admitted to any of the 150 participating general surgery (GS), hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (HPB), internal medicine (IM) and gastroenterology (GA) departments with a diagnosis of biliary acute pancreatitis between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2020 were included in the study. Categorical data were reported as percentages representing the proportion of all study patients or different and well-defined cohorts for each variable. Continuous data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Differences between the compliance obtained in the four different subgroups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U, Student's t, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data, and the Chi-square test or the Fisher's exact test for categorical data. Results: Complete data were available for 5275 patients. The most commonly discordant gaps between daily clinical practice and recommendations included the optimal timing for the index CT scan (6.1%, χ2 6.71, P = 0.081), use of prophylactic antibiotics (44.2%, χ2 221.05, P < 0.00001), early enteral feeding (33.2%, χ2 11.51, P = 0.009), and the implementation of early cholecystectomy strategies (29%, χ2 354.64, P < 0.00001), with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Conclusions: The results of this study showed an overall poor compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of ABP, with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (ID Number NCT04747990)

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population