24 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Efficacy and safety of combined piroxicam, dexamethasone, orphenadrine, and cyanocobalamin treatment in mandibular molar surgery

    No full text
    Third molar extraction is a common procedure frequently accompanied by moderate or severe pain, and involves sufficient numbers of patients to make studies relatively easy to perform. The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the therapeutic combination of 10 mg piroxicam, 1 mg dexamethasone, 35 mg orphenadrine citrate, and 2.5 mg cyanocobalamin (RheumazinÂź) when compared with 20 mg piroxicam alone (FeldeneÂź) in mandibular third molar surgery. Eighty patients scheduled for removal of the third molar were included in this randomized and double-blind study. They received (vo) Rheumazin or Feldene 30 min after tooth extraction and once daily for 4 consecutive days. Pain was determined by a visual analogue scale and by the need for escape analgesia (paracetamol). Facial swelling was evaluated with a measuring tape and adverse effects and patient satisfaction were recorded. There was no statistically significant difference in facial swelling between Rheumazin and Feldene (control group). Both drugs were equally effective in the control of pain, with Rheumazin displaying less adverse effects than Feldene. Therefore, Rheumazin appears to provide a better risk/benefit ratio in the mandibular molar surgery. Since the side effects resulting from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration are a severe limitation to the routine use of these drugs in clinical practice, our results suggest that Rheumazin can be a good choice for third molar removal treatment
    corecore