Patients' Preferences on Information and Involvement in Decision Making for Gastrointestinal Surgery

Background: The relationship between physicians and patients has undergone important changes, and the current emancipation of patients has led to a real partnership in medical decision making. The present study aimed to assess patients' preferences on different aspects of decision making during treatment and potential complications, as well as the amount and type of preoperative information wanted before visceral surgery. Methods: This was a prospective non-randomized study based on a questionnaire given to 253 consecutive patients scheduled for elective gastrointestinal surgery. Results: In considering surgical complications or treatment in the intensive care unit, 64% of patients wished to take an active role in any medical decisions. The respective figures for cardiac resuscitation and treatment limitations were 89 and 60%. As for information, 73, 77, and 47% of patients wish detailed information, information on a potential ICU hospitalization, and knowledge of cardiac resuscitation, respectively. Elderly and low-educated patients were significantly less interested in shared medical decision making (p=0.003 and 0.015), and in receiving information (p=0.03 and 0.05). Similarly, involvement of the family in decision making was significantly less important to elderly and male patients (p=0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Neither the type of operation (minor or major) nor the severity of disease (malignancies versus non-malignancies) was a significant factor for shared decision making, information, or family involvement. Conclusions: The vast majority of surgical patients clearly want to get adequate preoperative information about their disease and the planned treatment. They also consider it crucial to be involved in any kind of decision making for treatment and complications. For most patients, the family role is limited to supporting the treating physicians if the patient is unable to participate in decision makin

Systematic hybrid laparoscopic and endovascular treatment of median arcuate ligament syndrome: A single-center experience

BackgroundMedian arcuate ligament syndrome (MALS) is caused by celiac trunk (CT) compression by the median arcuate ligament. Clinically, this pathology varies from postprandial pain (Dunbar syndrome) to a life-threatening hemorrhage because of a rupture of a gastroduodenal artery aneurysm (GAA). Due to the low prevalence of this disease, there is no standard management for MALS.Material and methodThis was a single-center, retrospective study of 13 patients. Two groups were identified on the basis of the initial clinical presentation: those operated for a GAA rupture (bleeding group—BG) and those operated electively for Dunbar syndrome (Dunbar syndrome group—DG). The primary endpoint was 30-day postoperative complications of a systematic laparoscopic release of the median arcuate ligament and stenting during the same procedure.ResultsSeven patients (54%) underwent elective surgery. Six patients (46%) underwent semiurgent repair under elective conditions post-embolization for GAA bleeding. The total operative time was longer in the BG (p = 0.06). Two patients in the BG suffered early major complications and needed reintervention, and those in the DG had a lower comprehensive complication index. No mortality was reported at 30 days. Overall median length of stay was 5 days (IQR: 3.5–15.3). Patients in the DG had a significantly shorter length of stay (p = 0.02). At 6 months, the primary and secondary CT stent patencies were 82% and 100%, respectively. There were no high-flow GAA recurrences.ConclusionsA combined approach of laparoscopic release of the median arcuate ligament and stenting during the same procedure is feasible and safe, and this approach must be systematically discussed in symptomatic patients

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

Risk Factors for Incisional and Organ Space Surgical Site Infections After Liver Resection are Different

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common cause of major morbidity after liver resection. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for incisional and organ/space SSIs after liver resection. Methods: Our liver surgery database was retrospectively analyzed for patients treated between January 2009 and November 2012 in a tertiary care Swiss hospital. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables to identify risk factors for incisional and organ/space SSIs. Results: In a total of 226 patients, SSI incidences were 12.8% (incisional), 4.0% (organ/space), and 1.8% (both). Univariate analysis showed that incisional SSIs were associated with high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, preoperative anemia, hypoalbuminemia, low prothrombin time, viral or alcoholic chronic hepatitis, liver cirrhosis, and prolonged operation times. Organ/space SSIs were associated with high rates of red blood cell transfusions, concomitant bowel surgery, and prolonged operation times. Multivariate analysis revealed that risk factors for incisional SSIs were anemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.82], high ASA scores (OR 2.88), presence of hepatitis or cirrhosis (OR 5.07), and prolonged operation times (OR 9.61). The only risk factor for organ/space SSIs was concomitant bowel surgery (OR 5.53). Hospital stays were similar in organ/space and incisional SSI groups, but significantly longer for those with both organ/space and incisional SSIs. Conclusions: High ASA scores, anemia, chronic hepatitis or liver cirrhosis, and prolonged operations increased the risk of incisional SSIs; concomitant bowel surgery increased the risk of organ/space SSI. Specific precautions to prevent organ/space and incisional SSIs may shorten hospital stays