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

Randomized prospective biomarker trial of ERCC1 for comparing platinum and nonplatinum therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer:ERCC1 Trial (ET)

Purpose Retrospective studies indicate that expression of excision repair cross complementing group 1 (ERCC1) protein is associated with platinum resistance and survival in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted the first randomized trial, to our knowledge, to evaluate ERCC1 prospectively and to assess the superiority of nonplatinum therapy over platinum doublet therapy for ERCC1-positive NSCLC as well as noninferiority for ERCC1-negative NSCLC. Patients and Methods This trial had a marker-by-treatment interaction phase III design, with ERCC1 (8F1 antibody) status as a randomization stratification factor. Chemonaïve patients with NSCLC (stage IIIB and IV) were eligible. Patients with squamous histology were randomly assigned to cisplatin and gemcitabine or paclitaxel and gemcitabine; nonsquamous patients received cisplatin and pemetrexed or paclitaxel and pemetrexed. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). We also evaluated an antibody specific for XPF (clone 3F2). The target hazard ratio (HR) for patients with ERCC1-positive NSCLC was ≤ 0.78. Results Of patients, 648 were recruited (177 squamous, 471 nonsquamous). ERCC1-positive rates were 54.5% and 76.7% in nonsquamous and squamous patients, respectively, and the corresponding XPF-positive rates were 70.5% and 68.5%. Accrual stopped early in 2012 for squamous patients because OS for nonplatinum therapy was inferior to platinum therapy (median OS, 7.6 months [paclitaxel and gemcitabine] v 10.7 months [cisplatin and gemcitabine]; HR, 1.46; P = .02). Accrual for nonsquamous patients halted in 2013. Median OS was 8.0 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 9.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-positive patients (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and 10.3 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 11.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-negative patients (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.33; interaction P = .64). OS HR was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44) for XPF-positive patients, and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.90 to 2.15) for XPF-negative patients (interaction P = .35). Neither ERCC1 nor XPF were prognostic: among nonsquamous patients, OS HRs for positive versus negative were ERCC1, 1.11 ( P = .32), and XPF, 1.08 ( P = .55). Conclusion Superior outcomes were observed for patients with squamous histology who received platinum therapy compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy; however, selecting chemotherapy by using commercially available ERCC1 or XPF antibodies did not confer any extra survival benefit. </jats:sec

Adaptation of the Wound Healing Questionnaire universal-reporter outcome measure for use in global surgery trials (TALON-1 study): mixed-methods study and Rasch analysis

BackgroundThe Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) is a universal-reporter outcome measure developed in the UK for remote detection of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to explore cross-cultural equivalence, acceptability, and content validity of the WHQ for use across low- and middle-income countries, and to make recommendations for its adaptation.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in an international randomized trial, conducted according to best practice guidelines, and co-produced with community and patient partners (TALON-1). Structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather data regarding cross-cultural, cross-contextual equivalence of the individual items and scale, and conduct a translatability assessment. Translation was completed into five languages in accordance with Mapi recommendations. Next, data from a prospective cohort (SWAT) were interpreted using Rasch analysis to explore scaling and measurement properties of the WHQ. Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated using a modified, exploratory, instrumental design model.ResultsIn the qualitative phase, 10 structured interviews and six focus groups took place with a total of 47 investigators across six countries. Themes related to comprehension, response mapping, retrieval, and judgement were identified with rich cross-cultural insights. In the quantitative phase, an exploratory Rasch model was fitted to data from 537 patients (369 excluding extremes). Owing to the number of extreme (floor) values, the overall level of power was low. The single WHQ scale satisfied tests of unidimensionality, indicating validity of the ordinal total WHQ score. There was significant overall model misfit of five items (5, 9, 14, 15, 16) and local dependency in 11 item pairs. The person separation index was estimated as 0.48 suggesting weak discrimination between classes, whereas Cronbach's α was high at 0.86. Triangulation of qualitative data with the Rasch analysis supported recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ items 1 (redness), 3 (clear fluid), 7 (deep wound opening), 10 (pain), 11 (fever), 15 (antibiotics), 16 (debridement), 18 (drainage), and 19 (reoperation). Changes to three item response categories (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot) were adopted for symptom items 1 to 10, and two categories (0, no; 1, yes) for item 11 (fever).ConclusionThis study made recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ for use in global surgical research and practice, using co-produced mixed-methods data from three continents. Translations are now available for implementation into remote wound assessment pathways

Use of Telemedicine for Post-discharge Assessment of the Surgical Wound: International Cohort Study, and Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to determine whether remote wound reviews using telemedicine can be safely upscaled, and if standardised assessment tools are needed. Summary background data: Surgical site infection is the most common complication of surgery worldwide, and frequently occurs after hospital discharge. Evidence to support implementation of telemedicine during postoperative recovery will be an essential component of pandemic recovery. Methods: The primary outcome of this study was surgical site infection reported up to 30-days after surgery (SSI), comparing rates reported using telemedicine (telephone and/or video assessment) to those with in-person review. The first part of this study analysed primary data from an international cohort study of adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery who were discharged from hospital before 30-days after surgery. The second part combined this data with the results of a systematic review to perform a meta-analysis of all available data conducted in accordance with PRIMSA guidelines (PROSPERO:192596). Results: The cohort study included 15,358 patients from 66 countries (8069 high, 4448 middle, 1744 low income). Of these, 6907 (45.0%) were followed up using telemedicine. The SSI rate reported using telemedicine was slightly lower than with in-person follow-up (13.4% vs. 11.1%, P&lt;0.001), which persisted after risk adjustment in a mixed-effects model (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.84, P&lt;0.001). This association was consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a propensity-score matched model. In nine eligible non-randomised studies identified, a pooled mean of 64% of patients underwent telemedicine follow-up. Upon meta-analysis, the SSI rate reported was lower with telemedicine (odds ratio: 0.67, 0.47-0.94) than in-person (reference) follow-up (I2=0.45, P=0.12), although there a high risk of bias in included studies. Conclusions: Use of telemedicine to assess the surgical wound post-discharge is feasible, but risks underreporting of SSI. Standardised tools for remote assessment of SSI must be evaluated and adopted as telemedicine is upscaled globally