The impact of feedback of intraoperative technical performance in surgery: a systematic review

Objectives: Increasing patient demands, costs and emphasis on safety, coupled with reductions in the length of time surgical trainees spend in the operating theatre, necessitate means to improve the efficiency of surgical training. In this respect, feedback based on intraoperative surgical performance may be beneficial. Our aim was to systematically review the impact of intraoperative feedback based on surgical performance. Setting: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 32 data-points per study were extracted. Participants: The search strategy yielded 1531 citations. Three studies were eligible, which comprised a total of 280 procedures by 62 surgeons. Results: Overall, feedback based on intraoperative surgical performance was found to be a powerful method for improving performance. In cholecystectomy, feedback led to a reduction in procedure time (p=0.022) and an improvement in economy of movement (p<0.001). In simulated laparoscopic colectomy, feedback led to improvements in instrument path length (p=0.001) and instrument smoothness (p=0.045). Feedback also reduced error scores in cholecystectomy (p=0.003), simulated laparoscopic colectomy (p<0.001) and simulated renal artery angioplasty (p=0.004). In addition, feedback improved balloon placement accuracy (p=0.041), and resulted in a smoother learning curve and earlier plateau in performance in simulated renal artery angioplasty. Conclusions: Intraoperative feedback appears to be associated with an improvement in performance, however, there is a paucity of research in this area. Further work is needed in order to establish the long-term benefits of feedback and the optimum means and circumstances of feedback delivery

Microstructural Consequences of Blast Lung Injury Characterized with Digital Volume Correlation

This study focuses on microstructural changes that occur within the mammalian lung when subject to blast and how these changes influence strain distributions within the tissue. Shock tube experiments were performed to generate the blast injured specimens (cadaveric Sprague-Dawley rats). Blast overpressures of 100 and 180 kPa were studied. Synchrotron tomography imaging was used to capture volumetric image data of lungs. Specimens were ventilated using a custom-built system to study multiple inflation pressures during each tomography scan. These data enabled the first digital volume correlation (DVC) measurements in lung tissue to be performed. Quantitative analysis was performed to describe the damaged architecture of the lung. No clear changes in the microstructure of the tissue morphology were observed due to controlled low- to moderate-level blast exposure. However, significant focal sites of injury were observed using DVC, which allowed the detection of bias and concentration in the patterns of strain level. Morphological analysis corroborated the findings, illustrating that the focal damage caused by a blast can give rise to diffuse influence across the tissue. It is important to characterize the non-instantly fatal doses of blast, given the transient nature of blast lung in the clinical setting. This research has highlighted the need for better understanding of focal injury and its zone of influence (alveolar interdependency and neighboring tissue burden as a result of focal injury). DVC techniques show great promise as a tool to advance this endeavor, providing a new perspective on lung mechanics after blast

Prolonged but not short-duration blast waves elicit acute inflammation in a rodent model of primary blast limb trauma

BackgroundBlast injuries from conventional and improvised explosive devices account for 75% of injuries from current conflicts; over 70% of injuries involve the limbs. Variable duration and magnitude of blast wave loading occurs in real-life explosions and is hypothesised to cause different injuries. While a number of in vivo models report the inflammatory response to blast injuries, the extent of this response has not been investigated with respect to the duration of the primary blast wave. The relevance is that explosions in open air are of short duration compared to those in confined spaces.MethodsHindlimbs of adult Sprauge-Dawley rats were subjected to focal isolated primary blast waves of varying overpressure (1.8–3.65 kPa) and duration (3.0–11.5 ms), utilising a shock tube and purpose-built experimental rig. Rats were monitored during and after the blast. At 6 and 24 h after exposure, blood, lungs, liver and muscle tissues were collected and prepared for histology and flow cytometry.ResultsAt 6 h, increases in circulating neutrophils and CD43Lo/His48Hi monocytes were observed in rats subjected to longer-duration blast waves. This was accompanied by increases in circulating pro-inflammatory chemo/cytokines KC and IL-6. No changes were observed with shorter-duration blast waves irrespective of overpressure. In all cases, no histological damage was observed in muscle, lung or liver. By 24 h post-blast, all inflammatory parameters had normalised.ConclusionsWe report the development of a rodent model of primary blast limb trauma that is the first to highlight an important role played by blast wave duration and magnitude in initiating acute inflammatory response following limb injury in the absence of limb fracture or penetrating trauma. The combined biological and mechanical method developed can be used to further understand the complex effects of blast waves in a range of different tissues and organs in vivo

CD43Lo classical monocytes participate in the cellular immune response to isolated primary blast lung injury

BACKGROUNDUnderstanding of the cellular immune response to primary blast lung injury (PBLI) is limited, with only the neutrophil response well documented. Moreover, its impact on the immune response in distal organs remains poorly understood. In this study, a rodent model of isolated primary blast injury was used to investigate the acute cellular immune response to isolated PBLI in the circulation and lung, including the monocyte response, and investigate distal subacute immune effects in the spleen and liver 6 hours after injury.METHODSRats were subjected to a shock wave (~135 kPa overpressure, 2 ms duration) inducing PBLI or sham procedure. Rat physiology was monitored, and at 1, 3, and 6 hours thereafter, blood, lung, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were collected and analyzed by flow cytometry, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and histologic examination. In addition, at 6 hours, spleen and liver were collected and analyzed by flow cytometry.RESULTSLung histology confirmed pulmonary barotrauma and inflammation. This was associated with rises in CXCL-1, interleukin 6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor α and albumin protein in the BALF. Significant acute increases in blood and lung neutrophils and CD43Lo/His48Hi (classical) monocytes/macrophages were detected. No significant changes were seen in blood or lung “nonclassical” monocyte and in natural killler, B, or T cells. In the BALF, significant increases were seen in neutrophils, CD43Lo monocyte-macrophages and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Significant increases in CD43Lo and Hi monocyte-macrophages were detected in the spleen at 6 hours.CONCLUSIONThis study reveals a robust and selective response of CD43Lo/His48Hi (classical) monocytes, in addition to neutrophils, in blood and lung tissue following PBLI. An increase in monocyte-macrophages was also observed in the spleen at 6 hours. This profile of immune cells in the blood and BALF could present a new research tool for translational studies seeking to monitor, assess, or attenuate the immune response in blast-injured patients

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation &lt;92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p&lt;0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research