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

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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

Adjuvant Use of Melatonin with Fluoxetine for Management of Fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia (FMS) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by generalized muscular pain and tenderness at specific anatomical sites. Although melatonin was effective in treating the pain associated with this syndrome, no defined clinical evidence supports this claim. The present study was designed to evaluate the clinical significance of using melatonin, alone or in combination with fluoxetine in FMS. A double-blind clinical study was conducted on 45 patients with FMS randomized into 4 groups; group A, treated with fluoxetine 20mg/day alone; group B, treated with melatonin 5mg alone; group C, treated with combination of fluoxetine 20 mg+3 mg melatonin; group D treated with combination of fluoxetine 20 mg+5 mg melatonin. Both fluoxetine and melatonin were given once daily in the morning and night time respectively for 8 weeks. Each patient clinically evaluated using Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). Serum levels of serotonin, malondialehyde and nitric oxide were also evaluated. Using melatonin (3 and 5mg/day) in combination with 20mg/day fluoxetine significantly decreased total FIQ score values; the combination therapy significantly decreased serum serotonin level associated with reduction in the oxidative stress parameters (MDA and NO). In conclusion, adjuvant use of melatonin with fluoxetine improves the biochemical and clinical parameters of FMS patients. [Med-Science 2013; 2(1.000): 423-35

Thrombocytopenia and clinical outcomes among patients with COVID‐19 disease: A cohort study

Abstract Background and Aims Thrombocytopenia is increasingly recognized among patients with critical illness and plays a role in several diseases affecting different organ systems. Therefore, we studied the prevalence of thrombocytopenia among hospitalized COVID‐19 patients and its correlation with disease severity and clinical outcomes. Methods This was an observational retrospective cohort study conducted on 256 hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. Thrombocytopenia is defined as a platelet count below 150,000/μL. Disease severity was classified based on the five‐point CXR scoring tool. Results Thrombocytopenia was found in 66 (25.78%) patients. In outcomes, 41 (16%) patients were admitted to intensive care unit, 51 (19.9%) died, and 50 (19.5%) had acute kidney injury (AKI). Of the total patients with thrombocytopenia, 58 (87.9%) had early thrombocytopenia, while 8 (12.1%) had late thrombocytopenia. Notably, mean survival time was markedly decreased in late‐onset thrombocytopenia cases (p < 0.0001). Patients with thrombocytopenia showed a significant increase in creatinine compared to those with normal platelet counts (p < 0.05). Moreover, thrombocytopenia was more prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease compared to other comorbidities (p < 0.05). In addition, hemoglobin was significantly lower in the thrombocytopenia group (p < 0.05). Conclusion Thrombocytopenia is a common finding among COVID‐19 patients, with a predilection toward a specific group of patients, though the exact reasons are unclear. It predicts poor clinical outcomes and is closely linked to mortality, AKI, and the need for mechanical ventilation. These findings suggest that more research is required to study the mechanism of thrombocytopenia and the possibility of thrombotic microangiopathy in COVID‐19 patients

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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 coprioritized 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