Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as day-case surgery: a review of the literature

Day-case surgery (DCS) in digestive surgery is a hot topic, and new indications for DCS in the field of gastrointestinal surgery have recently been described. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a popular bariatric procedure in recent years. LSG is a reproducible, standardized procedure with a short operating time and possibly simple perioperative management. It therefore meets the criteria to be performed as a DCS procedure. Recently published series of LSG as DCS have demonstrated its feasibility. In this review on LSG performed as DCS, we focused on the management of risks associated with DCS and the results of such type of management. A literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases. Six studies were selected, comprising a total of 6227 patients. Most published series were retrospective single-center studies. Inclusion criteria were similar between most studies (primary sleeve gastrectomy for most series, patients with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m² or a body mass index ≥35 kg/m² in the presence of co-morbidities), while exclusion criteria were based on literature data for some studies (using series on risk factors for morbidity and mortality after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) and personal experience for other series. The mortality rate of LSG as DCS ranges 0%–.08%, while the overall complication rate ranges 0%–10%. The unplanned overnight admission rate after LSG ranges .8%–8%. The unscheduled hospitalization rates range 2.1%–8.5%. LSG performed as DCS is feasible with good results, but cannot be proposed for all patients. Good selection is necessary in others to avoid increased risk of morbidity and mortality.     

Effect of an independent-sector treatment centre on provision of elective orthopaedic surgery in east and north hertfordshire

Introduction

Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) were created to relieve pressure from Acute Hospital Trusts. In October 2011, an ISTC opened on the grounds of a hospital within the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust. Most elective orthopaedic procedures were transferred there. We investigated the effect on productivity of operating theatres working in the ISTC compared with those working in the Acute Hospital Trust (AHT).

Methods

A 3-month period of working at the AHT was compared with the same period 9-months later in the ISTC, which were termed ‘pre-’ and ‘post-ISTC’ opening, respectively. Data for upper limb (UL) as well as foot and ankle (F&A) surgery were collected. Differences in the number of lists and patients per list constituted usage analyses. Financial productivity was calculated from the latest Payment by Results (PbR) data. A two-tailed Mann–Whitney U-test at a confidence level of 95% was employed to compare costs between groups.

Results

The UL surgeon undertook 18 lists in both years with 66 patients (pre-ISTC) and 32 (post-ISTC), eliciting a reduction in productivity of 51.5%. There were 13 lists for F&A surgery pre-ISTC with 67 procedures, and 20 lists with 49 patients post-ISTC. Allowing for the difference in the number of lists, a reduction of 52.5% was noted. PbR analyses confirmed productivity of £169,695 (pre-ISTC) and £95,760 (post-ISTC) at a loss of £73,935 for the UL surgeon. F&A data revealed £97,801 (pre-ISTC) and £91,960 (post-ISTC) at a loss of £54,742 when correcting for the difference in the number of lists. There was a combined reduction in potential financial productivity of £128,677 over 3 months or £514,708 over 1 year.

Discussion

Implementation of the ISTC was detrimental to departmental efficiency, with <50% of the number of patients being treated and a marked reduction in financial productivity.     

Diabetes and its negative impact on outcomes in orthopaedic surgery

An estimated 285 million adults (aged 20-79 years) worldwide were diagnosed to have diabetes mellitus (DM) in 2010, and this number is projected to grow to 439 million adults by the year 2030. Orthopaedic surgeons, regardless of their subspecialty interest, will encounter patients with DM during their career since this epidemic involves both developed and emerging countries. Diabetes results in complications affecting multiple organ systems, potentially resulting in adverse outcomes after orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this review is to discuss the pathophysiology of DM and its potential for impacting orthopaedic surgery patients. Diabetes adversely affects the outcome of all orthopaedic surgery subspecialties including foot and ankle, upper extremity, adult reconstructive, pediatrics, spine surgery and sports medicine. Poorly controlled diabetes negatively impacts bone, soft tissue, ligament and tendon healing. It is the complications of diabetes such as neuropathy, peripheral artery disease, and end stage renal disease which contributes to adverse outcomes. Well controlled diabetic patients without comorbidities have similar outcomes to patients without diabetes. Orthopaedic surgeons should utilize consultants who will assist in inpatient glycemic management as well as optimizing long term glycemic control.     

The use and abuse of abbreviations in orthopaedic literature

INTRODUCTION

Abbreviations are commonly used in medical literature. Their use has been associated with medical errors and they can be a source of irritation and misunderstanding. There are strict guidelines for their use. This study analysed the use of abbreviations in orthopaedic literature and compared adherence with guidelines in a general orthopaedic and spinal journal. It also examined orthopaedic professionals& understanding of abbreviations.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The use of abbreviations in articles over a 3-month period in a general orthopaedic and spinal journal was analysed. The number of abbreviations and adherence with guidelines was recorded. A group of orthopaedic healthcare professionals were tested for their understanding of abbreviations.

RESULTS

Almost half of all abbreviations were not properly used and 30% of abbreviations were never defined. Abbreviations were used significantly more often in the spinal journal. Only 40% of abbreviations were correctly defined by the orthopaedic professionals tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines regarding the use of abbreviations are not being adhered to by authors or editors. The poor understanding of abbreviations underlines the importance of minimising their use and defining abbreviations when they are used.     

Surgeon’s expectations do not predict the outcome of a total knee arthroplasty

Introduction  It is fascinating for both the patient and the surgeon to predict the outcome of a TKA at an early stage. Satisfaction after TKA is primarily determined by the preoperative expectations of the patient. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the peri-operative expectations of the surgeon predicted the outcome of a TKA. Patients and methods  A prospective study of 53 primary TKAs was performed. Preoperatively, the surgeon described the assessment of the difficulty of the TKA on a VAS. Immediately postoperative, the surgeon gave his satisfaction VAS about the procedure. After 1 year the surgeon’s satisfaction VAS, the patient’s satisfaction VAS and the KSCRS were determined. Results  The Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the preoperative difficulty assessment, the immediate postoperative satisfaction and the outcome measurements after 1 year were all very poor (−0.01 to 0.23). Conclusions  The outcome of a TKA depends on multiple factors. Both the surgeon’s preoperative assessment of the difficulty and the surgeon’s immediate postoperative satisfaction do not independently predict the outcome of a TKA.     

Re-starting elective orthopaedic services in NHS Tayside during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundElective orthopaedic operations were suspended at the start of the COVID-19 lockdown. Three pathways were created to allow patients to undergo urgent elective operations in NHS Tayside as soon as it was deemed safe to do so.MethodsWe examined elective orthopaedic activity in NHS Tayside during and immediately after the Scottish lockdown. Elective operations performed between 27 March 2020 and 10 August 2020 were included and compared with cases performed between 27 March and 10 August in both 2018 and 2019. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 30-day complications, and nosocomial infection rates of COVID-19.FindingsFewer elective operations were performed in 2020 (258) compared with 2019 (1196) and 2018 (1261). The rate of nosocomial infection in the 2020 cohort was 0%. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Over 98% of patients agreed to undergo surgery after a detailed consenting process.InterpretationWe were able to re-start a safe elective orthopaedic service in the early stages of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, compatible with the guidelines set by the Royal College of Surgery of England and the British Orthopaedic Association. Our findings will serve to reassure regions with sufficient resources that it is acceptable to restart elective surgery for urgent priority cases. They may provide a template for planned surgical care in the event of further pandemics.     

Patient decision aids in joint replacement surgery: a literature review and an opinion survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Patient decision aids could facilitate shared decision-making in joint replacement surgery. However, patient decision aids are not routinely used in this setting.

METHODS

With a view to developing a patient decision aid for UK hip/knee joint replacement practice, we undertook a systematic search of the literature for evidence on the use of shared decision-making and patient decision aids in orthopaedics, and a national survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons on the potential acceptability and feasibility of patient decision aids.

RESULTS

We found little published evidence regarding shared decision-making or patient decision aids in orthopaedics. In the survey, 362 of 639 (57%) randomly selected consultant orthopaedic surgeons responded. Respondents appear representative of consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK. Of 272 valid responses, 79% (95% CI, 73–85%) thought patient decision aids a good or excellent idea. There was consensus on the potential helpfulness of patient decision aids and core content. A booklet to take home was the preferred medium/practice model.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increased emphasis on patient involvement in decision-making, there is little evidence in the medical literature relating to shared decision-making or the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic surgery. Further research in this area of clinical practice is required. Our survey shows that consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK are generally positive about the use of patient decision aids for joint replacement surgery. Survey results could inform future development of patient decision aids for joint replacement practice in the UK.     

Impact of COVID-19 on Orthopaedic Care and Practice: A Rapid Review

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a large body of literature regarding the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care and practice. This rapid review aims to synthesize this published literature to give the orthopaedic fraternity an overview about the best practices that need to be followed during this period.MethodologyA rapid review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for rapid reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care and practice. A Pubmed search was done to identify all literature related to the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care and practice, published between December 2019 and October 2020 using a predefined search strategy. The final review included 375 peer-reviewed articles addressing the objectives.ResultsThe majority of articles were expert opinions ( 37.1%) and narrative reviews (13.1%). There were 17.3% retrospective studies and 2.1% prospective studies with only one randomized control trial and ten systematic reviews.  83.8% of articles had levels of evidence IV and V, 79.5% of the articles were published in core-orthopaedic journals. Maximum publications were from the United States of America (31.7%), followed by India (11.5%). European countries together contributed to  32.0% of all publications.ConclusionCOVID-19 has had a significant impact on all aspects of orthopaedic care and practice. The pandemic has affected outpatient clinics, emergency and elective surgery, rehabilitation, resident training, personnel management, use of personal protective equipment, telemedicine and all sub-specialities of orthopaedics. Orthopaedic practice will require the incorporation of new technologies, restructuring of health systems and reorganizing of training programs for optimal patient care. There would also be a need for frequent review of emerging literature to provide evidence-based guidelines to the orthopaedic fraternity which will not only help in mitigation of transmission of disease but also ensure continuity of optimum patient care.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00354-0.     

Compliance and satisfaction with foot compression devices: an orthopaedic perspective

Introduction Although mechanical methods of thromboembolic prophylaxis have proven efficacy, relatively little is known about levels of patient compliance in the usage of these devices. Based on anecdotal evidence, we hypothesised that levels of compliance are sometimes insufficient to provide adequate thromboprophylaxis in the clinical setting. We prospectively analysed the use of foot pumps in 30 orthopaedic patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty in order to assess levels of both patient compliance and satisfaction. Materials and methods The study was carried out over a 5-month period. Levels of compliance were measured by using a system of random “spot checks”. Each patient completed a questionnaire before discharge. Parameters investigated included comfort levels while using the device and identification of factors about the device which the patients disliked. Results Three hundred and ninety-one measurements were made. The utilisation of the device was found to be effective in 40.2% of measurements. We detected an overall progressive decline in the level of compliance as post-operative time increased [P < 0.001, Chi-square (χ²) test]. The average level of patient “comfort” was 7.1 on a visual analogue scale of 0–10. Sleep disturbance was reported by 57% of patients, while 43% complained of “heat intolerance”. We have also shown that compliance is significantly reduced in those who complained of “sleep disturbance” while using the foot pumps (t-test, P < 0.05). Conclusions These findings suggest that satisfactory levels of compliance can be difficult to achieve in the clinical setting despite the proven efficacy in clinical trials of this device. Greater emphasis on patient education may help improve compliance. Unless compliance can be strictly enforced, it appears advisable to only use foot pumps in combination with other forms of pharmacological prophylaxis. Jeffrey C. Y. Chan and Simon J. Roche contributed equally to this project.     

Predictors of patient and surgeon satisfaction after orthopaedic trauma

Introduction

Patient satisfaction has only recently gained attention as an outcome measure in orthopaedics, where it has been reported for joint replacement surgery. Little has been published regarding predictors of patient satisfaction in orthopaedic trauma. This study aims to explore the predictors of patient satisfaction, and of surgeon satisfaction, after orthopaedic trauma.

Materials and methods

Adult patients admitted to hospital with fractures after motor vehicle trauma were surveyed on admission, and at six months. Demographic, injury, socio-economic and compensation-related factors were measured. The two outcomes were satisfaction with progress of the injury, and satisfaction with recovery. The treating surgeons were also surveyed at six months to determine surgeon satisfaction with progress, and recovery (using the same questions), and the presence or absence of fracture union and any complications. Multivariate analysis was used to determine significant predictors of satisfaction for both groups, and satisfaction rates were compared between surgeons and patients.

Results

Of 306 patients recruited, 232 (75.8%) returned completed questionnaires, but only 141 (46.1%) surgeons responded. Patients rated their satisfaction with progress and recovery as 74.6% and 44.4%, respectively, whereas surgeon-rated satisfaction with progress and recovery was significantly higher, at 88.0% and 66.7%, respectively (p < 0.0001).Significant predictors of patient dissatisfaction were: blaming others for the injury, being female, and using a lawyer. Patient-rated satisfaction was not significantly associated with objective injury or treatment factors. The only significant predictor of surgeon dissatisfaction was fracture non-union.

Conclusions

Orthopaedic surgeons overestimated the progress of the injury and the level of recovery compared to patients’ own ratings. Surgeons’ ratings were influenced by objective, treatment-related factors, whereas patients’ ratings were not. Measures of outcome commonly used by orthopaedic surgeons, such as fracture union, do not predict patient satisfaction.

Level of evidence

Level II evidence (prognostic, prospective study).     

Outcomes of orthopaedic trauma patients undergoing surgery during the peak period of COVID-19 infection at a UK major trauma centre

BackgroundTo review the clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing emergency orthopaedic trauma surgery at a UK major trauma centre during the first 6 weeks of the COVID-19 related lockdown.MethodsA retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent emergency orthopaedic trauma surgery at a single urban major trauma centre over the first six-week period of national lockdown. Demographics, co-morbidities, injuries, injury severity scores, surgery, COVID-19 status, complications and mortalities were analysed.ResultsA total of 76 patients were included for review who underwent multiple procedures. Significant co-morbidity was present in 72%. The overall COVID-19 infection rate of the study population at any time was 22%. Sub-group analysis indicated 13% had active COVID-19 at the time of surgery. Only 4% of patients developed COVID-19 post surgery with no mortalities in this sub-group. The overall mortality rate was 4%. The overall complication rate was 14%. However mortality and complications rates were higher if the patients had active COVID-19 at surgery, if they were over 70 years and had sustained life-threatening injuries.ConclusionThe overall survival rate for patients undergoing emergency orthopaedic trauma surgery during the COVID-19 peak was 96%. The rate of any complication was more significant in those presenting with active COVID-19 infections who had sustained potentially life threatening injuries and were over 70 years of age. Conversely those without active COVID-19 infection and who lacked significant co-morbidities experienced a lower complication and mortality rate.     

Operative management of colonic diverticular disease in the setting of immunosuppression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundImmunosuppressed patients with diverticular disease are at higher risk of postoperative complications, however reported rates have varied. The aim of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes in immunosuppressed and immunocompetent patients undergoing surgery for diverticular disease.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were included if they compared immunosuppressed and immunocompetent patients undergoing surgery for diverticular disease.ResultsFrom 204 citations, 11 studies with 2,977 immunosuppressed patients and 780,630 immunocompetent patients were included. Mortality was greater in immunosuppressed patients compared to immunocompetent patients for emergent surgery (RR 1.91, 95%CI 1.24–2.95, p < 0.01), but not elective surgery (RR 1.70, 95%CI 0.14–20.47, p = 0.68). Morbidity was greater in immunosuppressed patients compared to immunocompetent patients for elective surgery (RR 2.18, 95%CI 1.02–4.65, p = 0.04), but not emergent surgery (RR 1.40, 95%CI 0.68–2.90, p = 0.37).ConclusionsIncreased consideration for elective operation may preclude the need for emergent surgery and the associated increase in postoperative mortality.     

Outcome measures in urogynaecology: the clinicians’ perspective

There is currently a paucity of information regarding clinicians’ expectations of treatment and whether their perception of bothersome symptoms is similar to that of the patient. Equally there is often a dichotomy of opinion when comparing clinician-centered evaluation with that of patients. The objectives of this study were to determine clinicians’ expectations following treatment, to assess the methods of outcome assessment used in the clinical and research settings, and to compare clinician’s expectations with those of patients. This was a prospective postal questionnaire-based study sent to members of the International Continence Society (UK). The questionnaire asked about expectations following treatment and use of outcome measures. These results were also compared to those of an identical patient questionnaire that have previously been published. Tests of agreement were performed between clinicians and patients using Cohen’s kappa statistic. Two hundred ninety-nine questionnaires were distributed with a response rate of 52.7%. Overall, 85.9% of responding clinicians felt a good improvement in urinary symptoms, so that they no longer interfered with quality of life, was a realistic outcome. The majority of clinicians thought that small or infrequent episodes of leakage were acceptable following treatment, although frequent or large leaks were not. Irritative urinary symptoms such as urgency and urge incontinence were felt to be less acceptable as were the symptoms of frequency and nocturia. Overall, there was found to be poor agreement between clinicians and patients attitudes to acceptability of symptoms with values of kappa ranging from –0.103 to 0.105, indicating that this agreement was no better than chance. In the research setting, 61% felt both subjective and objective outcome measures should be used, whereas in clinical practice, 42% thought subjective improvement alone, and 36% subjective improvement in QoL, were appropriate. Clinicians have realistic expectations following treatment, although there is poor agreement with those expectations expressed by patients. These findings may help to explain why patients may be disappointed regarding treatment outcomes and why there may be a difference between subjective clinical impression of success and patient satisfaction. In addition there is a lack of conformity in the use of outcome measures in both the clinical and research settings.