Search

Background: Since the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), concerns for patient safety are more often brought to the attention. Knowledge about and awareness of patient safety risk factors are crucial in order to improve and enhance the surgical team, the environment, and finally surgical performance. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify patient safety risk factors in laparoscopic hysterectomy and to determine their influence on surgical outcomes.Methods: A prospective multicenter study was conducted from April 2014 to January 2016, participating gynecologists registered their performed laparoscopic hysterectomies (LHs). If deemed necessary, gynecologists could fill out a checklist with validated patient safety risk factors. Association between procedures with and without an occurred risk factor(s) and the surgical outcomes (blood loss, operative time, and complications) were assessed, using multivariate logistic regression and generalized estimation equations.Results: Eighty-five gynecologists participated in the study, registering a total of 2237 LHs. For 627(28 %) procedures, the checklist was entered (in total 920 items). The most reported risk factors were related to the surgeon (19.6 %), the surgical team (14.4 %), technology (16.6 %), and the patient (26.8 %). The procedures where a risk factor was registered had significantly less favorable outcomes, higher complication rate (10.5 vs. 4.8 % (p = 0.002), longer operative time [114 vs. 95 min (p < 0.001)], and more blood loss [110 vs. 168 mL (p = 0.047)], which was mainly due to the technological and patient-related risk factors.Conclusion: Technological incidents are the most important and clinically relevant risk factors affecting surgical outcomes of LH. Future improvements of MIS need to focus on this. As awareness of safety risk factors in MIS is important, embedding of a safety risk factor checklist in registration systems will help surgeons to evaluate and improve their individual performance. This will inherently improve the surgical outcomes and thus patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the safety and effectiveness of LESS compared to conventional hysterectomy.Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the MOOSE guideline, and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Different databases were searched up to 4th of August 2016. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing LESS to the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were considered for inclusion.Results: Of the 668 unique articles, 23 were found relevant. We investigated safety by analyzing the complication rate and found no significant differences between both groups [OR 0.94 (0.61, 1.44), I 2 = 19%]. We assessed effectiveness by analyzing conversion risk, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. For conversion rates to laparotomy, no differences were identified [OR 1.60 (0.40, 6.38), I 2 = 45%]. In 3.5% of the cases in the LESS group, an additional port was needed during LESS. For postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction, some of the included studies reported favorable results for LESS, but the clinical relevance was non-significant. Concerning secondary outcomes, only a difference in operative time was found in favor of the conventional group [MD 11.3 min (5.45-17.17), I 2 = 89%]. The quality of evidence for our primary outcomes was low or very low due to the study designs and lack of power for the specified outcomes. Therefore, caution is urged when interpreting the results.Conclusion: The single-port technique for benign hysterectomy is feasible, safe, and equally effective compared to the conventional technique. No clinically relevant advantages were identified, and as no data on cost effectiveness are available, there are currently not enough valid arguments to broadly implement LESS for hysterectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is frequently compromised by surgical flow disturbances due to technology- and equipment-related failures. Compared with MIS in a conventional cart-based OR, performing MIS in a dedicated integrated operating room (OR) is supposed to be beneficial to patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare a conventional OR with an integrated OR with regard to the incidence and effect of equipment-related surgical flow disturbances during an advanced laparoscopic gynecological procedure [laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)].Methods: Using video recording, 40 LHs performed between November 2010 and April 2012 (20 in a conventional cart-based OR and 20 in an integrated OR) were analyzed by two different observers. Outcome measures were the number, duration and effect (on a seven-point ordinal scale) of the surgical flow disturbances (e.g., malfunctioning, intraoperative repositioning, setup device).Results: A total of 103 h and 45 min was observed. The interobserver agreement was high (kappa .85, p < .001). Procedure time was not significantly different (NS) [conventional OR vs. integrated OR, minutes ± standard deviation (SD), mean 161 ± 27 vs. 150 ± 34]. A total of 1651 surgical flow disturbances were observed (mean ± SD per procedure 40.8 ± 19.4 vs. 41.8 ± 15.9, NS). The mean number of surgical flow disturbances per procedure with regard to equipment was 6.3 ± 3.7 versus 8.5 ± 4.0, NS. No clinically relevant differences in the mean effect of these disturbances on the surgical flow between the two OR setups were observed.Conclusions: Performing LH in an integrated OR did not reduce the number of surgical flow disturbances nor the effect of these disturbances. Furthermore, in the integrated OR, repositioning of the monitors was a frequent and time-consuming source of disturbance. In order to maintain the high standard of surgical safety, the entire surgical team has to be aware that by performing surgery in an integrated OR different potential source for disruption arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current health care system has an urgent need for tools to measure quality. A wide range of quality indicators have been developed in an attempt to differentiate between high-quality and low-quality health care processes. However, one of the main issues of currently used indicators is the lack of case-mix correction and improvement possibilities. Case-mix is defined as specific (patient) characteristics that are known to potentially affect (surgical) outcome. If these characteristics are not taken into consideration, comparisons of outcome among health care providers may not be valid.Objective: The objective of the study was to develop and test a quality assessment tool for laparoscopic hysterectomy, which can serve as a new outcome quality indicator.Study Design: This is a prospective, international, multicenter implementation study. A web-based application was developed with 3 main goals: (1) to measure the surgeon's performance using 3 primary outcomes (blood loss, operative time, and complications); (2) to provide immediate individual feedback using cumulative observed-minus-expected graphs; and (3) to detect consistently suboptimal performance after correcting for case-mix characteristics. All gynecologists who perform laparoscopic hysterectomies were requested to register their procedures in the application. A patient safety risk factor checklist was used by the surgeon for reflection. Thereafter a prospective implementation study was performed, and the application was tested using a survey that included the System Usability Scale.Results: A total of 2066 laparoscopic hysterectomies were registered by 81 gynecologists. Mean operative time was 100 ± 39 minutes, blood loss 127 ± 163 mL, and the complication rate 6.1%. The overall survey response rate was 75%, and the mean System Usability Scale was 76.5 ± 13.6, which indicates that the application was good to excellent. The majority of surgeons reported that the application made them more aware of their performance, the outcomes, and patient safety, and they noted that the application provided motivation for improving future performance.Conclusion: We report the development and test of a real-time, dynamic, quality assessment tool for measuring individual surgical outcome for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Importantly, this tool provides opportunities for improving surgical performance. Our study provides a foundation for helping clinicians develop evidence-based quality indicators for other surgical procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify predictors of postsurgical adhesion formation in peritoneal fluid and plasma, and assess efficacy and safety of reteplase (recombinant plasminogen activator [r-PA]). Design: Prospective randomized study. Setting: University Medical Center. Patient(s): Twenty-six abdominal myomectomy patients with early second-look laparoscopy (ESL). Intervention(s): Randomization to IP treatment with 1 mg reteplase in 300 mL Ringer''s lactate or 300 mL Ringer''s lactate only. Scoring of adhesions and collecting peritoneal fluid during both surgical procedures and collecting plasma samples at ten time points. Main Outcome Measure(s): Incidence, severity, and extent of adhesions at ESL. Concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and fibrin degradation products (FbDPs). Result(s): Significant correlation between the extent of uterine adhesion formation and preoperative plasma levels of CRP (rs = 0.558), PAI-1 (rs = 0.413), and the change in tPA concentration in peritoneal fluid from initial surgery to ESL (Δ+PA: rs = −0.636). No significant differences in adhesion scores between treatment and control groups. Conclusion(s): Our finding that preoperative plasma CRP and PAI-1-levels are significantly correlated with extent of adhesion formation points to a role of chronic inflammation in the disease process. Results are highly indicative for the paradigm that adhesions are caused by an insufficiency in peritoneal fibrinolytic capacity. For successful adhesion prevention therapy relatively high amounts of r-PA are required. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]