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)

Timing of Cholecystectomy After Moderate and Severe Acute Biliary Pancreatitis

IMPORTANCE Considering the lack of equipoise regarding the timing of cholecystectomy in patients with moderately severe and severe acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), it is critical to assess this issue.OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of early cholecystectomy (EC) in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP.DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study retrospectively analyzed real-life data from the MANCTRA-1 (Compliance With Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis) data set, assessing 5304 consecutive patients hospitalized between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, for ABP from 42 countries. A total of 3696 patients who were hospitalized for ABP and underwent cholecystectomy were included in the analysis; of these, 1202 underwent EC, defined as a cholecystectomy performed within 14 days of admission. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality and morbidity. Data analysis was performed from January to February 2023.MAIN OUTCOMES Mortality and morbidity after EC.RESULTS Of the 3696 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [17.8] years; 1907 [51.5%] female) included in the analysis, 1202 (32.5%) underwent EC and 2494 (67.5%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Overall, EC presented an increased risk of postoperative mortality (1.4% vs 0.1%, P <.001) and morbidity (7.7% vs 3.7%, P < .001) compared with DC. On the multivariable analysis, moderately severe and severe ABP were associated with increased mortality (odds ratio [OR], 361.46; 95% CI, 2.28-57 212.31; P = .02) and morbidity (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.35-5.19; P = .005). In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with an increased risk of mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 0 [0%], P < .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 57 [5.5%], P < .001), bile leakage (2 [2.4%] vs 4 [0.4%], P = .02), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 4 [0.4%], P < .001) compared with patients with mild ABP who underwent EC. In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with higher mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 2 [1.2%], P < .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 17 [10.3%], P < .001), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 2 [1.3%], P < .001) compared with patients with moderately severe and severe ABP who underwent DC. On the multivariable analysis, the patient's age (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P = .03) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.06-32.78; P = .04) were associated with mortality; severe complications of ABP were associated with increased mortality (OR, 50.04; 95% CI, 2.37-1058.01; P = .01) and morbidity (OR, 33.64; 95% CI, 3.19-354.73; P = .003).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study's findings suggest that EC should be considered carefully in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP, as it was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, older and more fragile patients manifesting severe complications related to ABP should most likely not be considered for EC