Search

Context: In patients with severe secondary peritonitis, there are 2 surgical treatment strategies following an initial emergency laparotomy: planned relaparotomy and relaparotomy only when the patient's condition demands it ("on-demand"). The on-demand strategy may reduce mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and costs. However, randomized trials have not been performed.Objective: To compare patient outcome, health care utilization, and costs of on-demand and planned relaparotomy.Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized, nonblinded clinical trial at 2 academic and 5 regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from November 2001 through February 2005. Patients had severe secondary peritonitis and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 11 or greater.Intervention: Random allocation to on-demand or planned relaparotomy strategy.Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was death and/or peritonitis-related morbidity within a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary end points included health care utilization and costs.Results: A total of 232 patients (116 on-demand and 116 planned) were randomized. One patient in the on-demand group was excluded due to an operative diagnosis of pancreatitis and 3 in each group withdrew or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in primary end point (57% on-demand [n = 64] vs 65% planned [n = 73]; P = .25) or in mortality alone (29% on-demand [n = 32] vs 36% planned [n = 41]; P = .22) or morbidity alone (40% on-demand [n = 32] vs 44% planned [n = 32]; P = .58). A total of 42% of the on-demand patients had a relaparotomy vs 94% of the planned relaparotomy group. A total of 31% of first relaparotomies were negative in the on-demand group vs 66% in the planned group (P <.001). Patients in the on-demand group had shorter median intensive care unit stays (7 vs 11 days; P = .001) and shorter median hospital stays (27 vs 35 days; P = .008). Direct medical costs per patient were reduced by 23% using the on-demand strategy.Conclusion: Patients in the on-demand relaparotomy group did not have a significantly lower rate of death or major peritonitis-related morbidity compared with the planned relaparotomy group but did have a substantial reduction in relaparotomies, health care utilization, and medical costs.Trial Registration: http://isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51729393. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost., Design: We developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty)., Setting: The framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands., Outcome Measures: Quality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times., Results: We studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (-€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before., Conclusions: This surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MMR had financial support by means of a VICI grant from NWO (Dutch Research Council) for the submitted work, the other authors had no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h -1 . The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h -1 . These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h -1 . These occurred mostly in periods of low work-load in a sub-team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work-load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub-teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross-monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub-teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours., (© 2020 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

Background: Cholecystectomy after gallstone pancreatitis may be technically demanding. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for a difficult cholecystectomy after mild pancreatitis., Methods: This was a prospective study within a randomized controlled trial on the timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Difficulty of cholecystectomy was scored on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) by the senior attending surgeon. The primary outcome 'difficult cholecystectomy' was defined by presence of one or more of the following features: a VAS score ≥ 8, duration of surgery > 75 minutes, conversion or subtotal cholecystectomy., Results: 249 patients were included in the primary analysis. A difficult cholecystectomy occurred in 82 patients (33%). In the 'same-admission cholecystectomy' group 29 of 112 cholecystectomies were difficult (26%) versus 49 of 127 patients (39%) who underwent surgery after 2 weeks (p = 0.037). After multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-3.13; p = 0.037), prior sphincterotomy (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.16; p = 0.046), and delaying cholecystectomy for at least two weeks (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.04-3.16; p = 0.036) were independent predictors of a difficult cholecystectomy., Conclusion: Surgeons should anticipate a difficult cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis in case of male sex, prior sphincterotomy and delayed cholecystectomy., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In patients with pancreatitis, early persisting organ failure is believed to be the most important cause of mortality. This study investigates the relation between the timing (onset and duration) of organ failure and mortality and its association with infected pancreatic necrosis in patients with necrotising pancreatitis., Design: We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective database of 639 patients with necrotising pancreatitis from 21 hospitals. We evaluated the onset, duration and type of organ failure (ie, respiratory, cardiovascular and renal failure) and its association with mortality and infected pancreatic necrosis., Results: In total, 240 of 639 (38%) patients with necrotising pancreatitis developed organ failure. Persistent organ failure (ie, any type or combination) started in the first week in 51% of patients with 42% mortality, in 13% during the second week with 46% mortality and in 36% after the second week with 29% mortality. Mortality in patients with persistent multiple organ failure lasting <1 week, 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks or longer than 3 weeks was 43%, 38%, 46% and 52%, respectively (p=0.68). Mortality was higher in patients with organ failure alone than in patients with organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis (44% vs 29%, p=0.04). However, when excluding patients with very early mortality (within 10 days of admission), patients with organ failure with or without infected pancreatic necrosis had similar mortality rates (28% vs 34%, p=0.33)., Conclusion: In patients with necrotising pancreatitis, early persistent organ failure is not associated with increased mortality when compared with persistent organ failure which develops further on during the disease course. Furthermore, no association was found between the duration of organ failure and mortality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To illustrate how decision modeling may identify relevant uncertainty and can preclude or identify areas of future research in surgery., Summary Background Data: To optimize use of research resources, a tool is needed that assists in identifying relevant uncertainties and the added value of reducing these uncertainties., Methods: The clinical pathway for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open (ODP) for nonmalignant lesions was modeled in a decision tree. Cost-effectiveness based on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival was analyzed. The effect of existing uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness was addressed, as well as the expected value of eliminating uncertainties., Results: Based on 29 nonrandomized studies (3.701 patients) the model shows that LDP is more cost-effective compared with ODP. Scenarios in which LDP does not outperform ODP for cost-effectiveness seem unrealistic, e.g., a 30-day mortality rate of 1.79 times higher after LDP as compared with ODP, conversion in 62.2%, surgically repair of incisional hernias in 21% after LDP, or an average 2.3 days longer hospital stay after LDP than after ODP. Taking all uncertainty into account, LDP remained more cost-effective. Minimizing these uncertainties did not change the outcome., Conclusions: The results show how decision analytical modeling can help to identify relevant uncertainty and guide decisions for future research in surgery. Based on the current available evidence, a randomized clinical trial on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival is highly unlikely to change the conclusion that LDP is more cost-effective than ODP.