First experience with a new negative pressure incision management system on surgical incisions after cardiac surgery in high risk patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sternal wound infection remains a serious potential complication after cardiac surgery. A recent development for preventing wound complications after surgery is the adjunctive treatment of closed incisions with negative pressure wound therapy. Suggested mechanisms of preventive action are improving the local blood flow, removing fluids and components in these fluids, helping keep the incision edges together, protecting the wound from external contamination and promoting incision healing. This work reports on our initial evaluation and clinical experience with the Prevena™Incision Management System, a recently introduced new negative pressure wound therapy system specifically developed for treating closed surgical incisions and helping prevent potential complications. We evaluated the new treatment on sternal surgical incisions in patients with multiple co-morbidities and consequently a high risk for wound complications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Prevena™incision management system was used in 10 patients with a mean Fowler risk score of 15.1 [Range 8-30]. The negative pressure dressing was applied immediately after surgery and left in place for 5 days with a continuous application of -125 mmHg negative pressure. Wounds and surrounding skin were inspected immediately after removal of the Prevena™ incision management system and at day 30 after surgery.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Wounds and surrounding skin showed complete wound healing with the absence of skin lesions due to the negative pressure after removal of the Prevena™ dressing. No device-related complications were observed. No wound complications occurred in this high risk group of patients until at least 30 days after surgery.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Prevena™system appears to be safe, easy to use and may help achieve uncomplicated wound healing in patients at risk of developing wound complications after cardiothoracic surgery.</p

Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10&nbsp;years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37&nbsp;years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020

Does Political Representation through Parties Decrease Voters' Acceptance of Decisions?

Are decisions by political parties more or less accepted than direct-democratic decisions? The literature on parties as brand names or labels suggests that the existence of political parties lowers information and transaction costs of voters by providing ideological packages. Building on this important argument, we posit that this informational rationale for parties is not universally applicable and is contingent on the context of the decision that is made. Intermediary political decision-making institutions may impose additional costs on voters in situations where the decision is perceived to be personally important to the individual voter. We conduct an experimental online vignette study to substantiate these claims. The results imply that a combination of representative democracy and direct democracy, conditional on the distribution of issue importance among the electorate, is optimal with regard to acceptance of a decision