Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability

Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and oral parafunctions in urban Saudi arabian adolescents: a research report

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and oral parafunction habits among Saudi adolescents in the permanent dentition stage. METHODS: A total of 385 (230 females and 155 males) school children age 12–16, completed a questionnaire and were examined clinically. A stratified selection technique was used for schools allocation. RESULTS: The results showed that 21.3% of the subjects exhibited at least one sign of TMD and females were generally more affected than males. Joint sounds were the most prevalent sign (13.5%) followed by restricted opening (4.7%) and opening deviation (3.9%). The amplitude of mouth opening, overbite taken into consideration, was 46.5 mm and 50.2 mm in females and males respectively. TMJ pain and muscle tenderness were rare (0.5%). Reported symptoms were 33%, headache being the most frequent symptom 22%, followed by pain during chewing 14% and hearing TMJ noises 8.7%. Difficulty during jaw opening and jaw locking were rare. Lip/cheek biting was the most common parafunction habit (41%) with females significantly more than males, followed by nail biting (29%). Bruxism and thumb sucking were only 7.4% and 7.8% respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of TMD signs were 21.3% with joint sounds being the most prevalent sign. While TMD symptoms were found to be 33% as, with headache being the most prevalent. Among the oral parafunctions, lip/cheek biting was the most prevalent 41% followed by nail biting 29%

Can process mapping and a multi-site Delphi of perioperative professionals inform our understanding of system-wide factors that may impact operative risk?

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo examine whether the use of process mapping and a multidisciplinary Delphi can identify potential contributors to perioperative risk. We hypothesised that this approach may identify factors not represented in common perioperative risk tools and give insights of use to future research in this area.DesignMultidisciplinary modified Delphi studySettingTwo centres (one tertiary, one secondary) in the United Kingdom during 2020 amidst coronavirus pressures.Participants91 stakeholders from 23 professional groups involved in the perioperative care of older patients. Key stakeholder groups were identified through the use of process mapping of local perioperative care pathways.ResultsResponse rate ranged from 51% in round one to 19% in round three. After round one, free text suggestions from the panel were combined with variables identified from perioperative risk scores. This yielded a total of 410 variables that were voted on in subsequent rounds. Including new suggestions from round two, 468/519 (90%) of the statements presented to the panel reached a consensus decision by the end of round three. Identified risk factors included patient level factors (such as ethnicity and socio-economic status); and organisational or process factors related to the individual hospital (such as policies, staffing, and organisational culture). 66/160 (41%) of the new suggestions did not feature in systematic reviews of perioperative risk scores or key process indicators. No factor categorised as ‘organisational’ is currently present in any perioperative risk score.ConclusionsThrough process mapping and a modified Delphi we gained insights into additional factors that may contribute to perioperative risk. Many were absent from currently used risk stratification scores. These results enable an appreciation of the contextual limitations of currently used risk tools and could support future research into the generation of more holistic datasets for the development of perioperative risk assessment tools.Strengths and Weaknesses-Novel use of process mapping to identify key perioperative stakeholders-Multidisciplinary Delphi panel to gain breadth of perspective-Performed across two sites-Comprehensive results may be of use to other researchers designing perioperative research databases-Results may be limited by low response rate in final round (although majority of consensus decisions made in round two)</jats:sec