37 research outputs found

    Reducing implant infection in orthopaedics (RIIiO): results of a pilot study comparing the influence of forced air and resistive fabric warming technologies on post-operative infections following orthopaedic implant surgery

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Active warming during surgery prevents perioperative hypothermia but the effectiveness and post-operative infection rates may differ between warming technologies. We report results of a pilot study in patients over the age of 65 undergoing hemiarthroplasty following fractured neck of femur. AIM To establish the recruitment and data management strategies needed for a full trial comparing post-operative infection rates associated with forced air versus resistive fabric warming. METHODS Participants were randomised 1:1 in permuted blocks to forced air or resistive fabric warming. Hypothermia was defined as a temperature of <36ºC at the end of surgery. Primary outcomes were the number of participants recruited and the number with definitive deep surgical site infections. FINDINGS 515 participants were randomised at 6 sites over a period of 18 months. Follow-up was completed for 70.1%. Thirty-seven participants were hypothermic (7.5% in the FAW group; 9.7 % in the RFW group). The mean temperatures before anaesthesia and at the end of surgery were similar. For the primary clinical outcome, there were 4 deep surgical site infections in the forced air warming group and 3 in the resistive fabric warming group. All participants who developed a post-operative infection had antibiotic prophylaxis, a cemented prosthesis and were operated under laminar airflow; none were hypothermic. There were no serious adverse events related to warming. CONCLUSION Surgical site infections were identified in both groups. Progression from the pilot to the full trial is possible but will need to take account of the high attrition rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN 74612906 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN74612906)

    Post-pandemic influenza A/H1N1pdm09 is associated with more severe outcomes than A/H3N2 and other respiratory viruses in adult hospitalisations

    No full text
    This study compares the frequency and severity of influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (A/H1), influenza A/H3N2 (A/H3) and other respiratory virus infections in hospitalised patients. Data from 17 332 adult hospitalised patients admitted to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, with a respiratory illness between 2012 and 2015 were linked with data containing reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results for respiratory viruses including A/H1, A/H3, influenza B, human metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza. Of these, 1753 (10.1%) had test results. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to compare the viruses for clinical outcomes including ICU admission, ventilation, pneumonia, length of stay and death. Patients with A/H1 were more likely to experience severe outcomes such as ICU admission (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.5, P = 0.016), pneumonia (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.6-5.7, P < 0.001) and lower risk of discharge from hospital (indicating longer lengths of hospitalisation; HR 0.64 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = 0.005), than patients with A/H3. Patients with a non-influenza respiratory virus were less likely to experience severe clinical outcomes than patients with A/H1, however, had similar likelihood when compared to patients with A/H3. Patients hospitalised with A/H1 had higher odds of severe outcomes than patients with A/H3 or other respiratory viruses. Knowledge of circulating influenza strains is important for healthcare preparedness

    Is conservation right to go big? Protected area size and conservation return-on-investment

    No full text
    Policy guidelines for creating new protected areas commonly recommend larger protected areas be favored. We examine whether these recommendations are justified, providing the first evaluation of this question to use return-on-investment (ROI) methods that account for how protected area size influences multiple ecological benefits and the economic costs of protection. We examine areas acquired to protect forested ecosystems in the eastern US that are rich in endemic species. ROI analyses often alter recommendations about protected area size from those obtained when considering only ecological benefits or only economic costs. Large protected areas offer a greater ecological return per dollar invested if the goal of protecting sites is to reduce forest fragmentation on the wider landscape, whereas smaller sites offer a higher ROI when prioritizing sites offering protection to more species. A portfolio of site sizes may need to be included in protected area networks when multiple objectives motivate conservation

    Data from: Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection

    No full text
    Conservation organizations must redouble efforts to protect habitat given continuing biodiversity declines. Prioritization of future areas for protection is hampered by disagreements over what the ecological targets of conservation should be. Here we test the claim that such disagreements will become less important as conservation moves away from prioritizing areas for protection based only on ecological considerations and accounts for varying costs of protection using return-on-investment (ROI) methods. We combine a simulation approach with a case study of forests in the eastern United States, paying particular attention to how covariation between ecological benefits and economic costs influences agreement levels. For many conservation goals, agreement over spatial priorities improves with ROI methods. However, we also show that a reliance on ROI-based prioritization can sometimes exacerbate disagreements over priorities. As such, accounting for costs in conservation planning does not enable society to sidestep careful consideration of the ecological goals of conservation

    Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection

    Get PDF
    Conservation organizations must redouble efforts to protect habitat given continuing biodiversity declines. Prioritization of future areas for protection is hampered by disagreements over what the ecological targets of conservation should be. Here we test the claim that such disagreements will become less important as conservation moves away from prioritizing areas for protection based only on ecological considerations and accounts for varying costs of protection using return-on-investment (ROI) methods. We combine a simulation approach with a case study of forests in the eastern United States, paying particular attention to how covariation between ecological benefits and economic costs influences agreement levels. For many conservation goals, agreement over spatial priorities improves with ROI methods. However, we also show that a reliance on ROI-based prioritization can sometimes exacerbate disagreements over priorities. As such, accounting for costs in conservation planning does not enable society to sidestep careful consideration of the ecological goals of conservation
    corecore