Quality of Care in Humanitarian Surgery

Humanitarian surgical programs are set up de novo, within days or hours in emergency or disaster settings. In such circumstances, insuring quality of care is extremely challenging. Basic structural inputs such as a safe structure, electricity, clean water, a blood bank, sterilization equipment, a post-anesthesia recovery unit, appropriate medications should be established. Currently, no specific credentials are needed for surgeons to operate in a humanitarian setting; the training of more humanitarian surgeons is desperately needed. Standard perioperative protocols for the humanitarian setting after common procedures such as Cesarean section, burn care, open fractures, and amputations and antibiotic prophylaxis, and post-operative pain management must be developed. Outcome data, especially long-term outcomes, are difficult to collect as patients often do not return for follow-up and may be difficult to trace; standard databases for post-operative infections and mortality rates should be established. Checklists have recently received significant attention as an instrument to support the improvement of surgical quality; knowing which items are most applicable to humanitarian settings remains unknown. In conclusion, the quality of surgical services in humanitarian settings must be regulated. Many other core medical activities of humanitarian organizations such as therapeutic feeding, mass vaccination, and the treatment of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus, are subject to rigorous reporting of quality indicators. There is no reason why surgery should be exempted from quality oversight. The surgical humanitarian community should pull together before the next disaster strikes

Genetic Basis of Myocarditis: Myth or Reality?

n/

Balancing the possibility of needing a future incontinence procedure versus a future urethral sling revision surgery: a tradeoff analysis for continent women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Introduction and hypothesis Although urinary incontinence surgery has potential benefits such as preventing de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, it comes with the potential cost of overtreatment and complications. We compared future surgery rates in a population cohort of women undergoing vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Methods All women undergoing POP repair in California from 2005 to 2011 were identified from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development databases. Rates of repeat surgery in those with and without concomitant urethral sling procedures were compared. To control for confounding effects, multivariate mixed effects logistic regression models were constructed to compare each woman's individualized risk of undergoing either sling revision surgery or future incontinence surgery. Results In the cohort, 38,456 underwent a sling procedure at the time of POP repair and 42,858 did not. The future surgery rate was higher for sling-related complications in the POP + sling cohort compared with future incontinence surgery in the POP alone cohort (3.5% versus 3.0% respectively, p < 0.001). The difference persisted in multivariate modeling, where most women (60%) are at a higher risk of requiring sling revision surgery compared with needing a future primary incontinence procedure (40%). Conclusions Women who undergo vaginal prolapse repair without an incontinence procedure are at a low risk of future incontinence surgery. Women without urinary incontinence who are considering vaginal POP surgery should be informed of the risks and benefits of including a sling procedure