Human factors in pelvic surgery

In the pelvis, anatomic complexity and difficulty in visualization and access make surgery a formidable task. Surgeons are prone to work-related musculoskeletal injuries from the frequently poor design and flow of their work environment. This is exacerbated by the strain of surgery in the pelvis. These injuries can result in alterations to a surgeons practice, inadvertent patient injury, and even early retirement. Human factors examines the relationships between the surgeon, their instruments and their environment. By bridging physiology, psychology, and ergonomics, human factors allows a better understanding of some of the challenges posed by pelvic surgery. The operative approach involved (open, laparoscopic, robotic, or perineal) plays an important role in the relevant human factors. Improved understanding of ergonomics can mitigate these risks to surgeons. Other human factors approaches such as standardization, use of checklists, and employing resiliency efforts can all improve patient safety in the operating theatre.     

Secondary Qualitative Analysis of Moral Injury in Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses

ObjectiveTo investigate the presence of symptoms of moral injury in obstetric and neonatal nurses.DesignA secondary qualitative analysis using an analytic expansion of three primary studies.SettingPostal mail and electronic surveys.ParticipantsI used three primary studies: participants in the first consisted of 78 labor and delivery nurses, participants in the second consisted of 75 nurse-midwives, and participants in the third consisted of 22 NICU nurses.MethodsI used Krippendorff’s content analysis method for qualitative data to reanalyze the three primary data sets. The categories I used in this analysis were the 10 symptoms of moral injury that are assessed by the Moral Injury Symptoms Scale–Health Professionals Version.ResultsWhen combining the three types of obstetric and neonatal participants, the top three most frequently cited symptoms of moral injury were moral concern, guilt, and self-condemnation. For participants in labor and delivery units and NICUs, moral concern was the most often described symptom, whereas for participants in midwifery it was guilt. None of the participants reported loss of meaning in their lives, loss of faith, or religious struggle. Participants who worked in NICUs did not describe any symptoms of shame or difficulty forgiving.ConclusionIn addition to the primary symptoms of moral injury, reported secondary consequences of moral injury can include depression, anxiety, anger, self-harm, and social problems. Interventions such as acceptance and commitment therapy are needed to help nurses address the potential for moral injury and repair its effects. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, now more than ever, moral injury needs to be recognized in obstetric and neonatal nurses and not just in the military population.     

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.AimsWe aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.ResultsA total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10–40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10–19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).ConclusionCSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.     

Impact of COVID-19 and malaria coinfection on clinical outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesDespite the possibility of concurrent infection with COVID-19 and malaria, little is known about the clinical course of coinfected patients. We analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with concurrent COVID-19 and malaria infection.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study that assessed prospectively collected data of all patients who were admitted between May and December 2020 to the Universal COVID-19 treatment center (UCTC), Khartoum, Sudan. UCTC compiled demographic, clinical, laboratory (including testing for malaria), and outcome data in all patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized at that clinic. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during the hospital stay. We built proportional hazard Cox models with malaria status as the main exposure and stepwise adjustment for age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, diabetes, and hypertension.ResultsWe included 591 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who were also tested for malaria. Mean (SD) age was 58 (16.2) years, 446/591 (75.5%) were males. Malaria was diagnosed in 270/591 (45.7%) patients. Most malaria patients were infected by Plasmodium falciparum (140/270; 51.9%), while 121/270 (44.8%) were coinfected with Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. Median follow-up was 29 days. Crude mortality rates were 10.71 and 5.87 per 1000 person-days for patients with and without concurrent malaria, respectively. In the fully adjusted Cox model, patients with concurrent malaria and COVID-19 had a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.69).DiscussionCoinfection with COVID-19 and malaria is associated with increased all-cause in-hospital mortality compared to monoinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).