Allan Okrainec

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with mesh

Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair has been reported in a number of small trials to have equivalent or superior outcomes to open repair.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Programs for Patients Having Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery programs have been introduced with aims of improving patient care, reducing complication rates, and shortening hospital stay following colorectal surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether enhanced recovery after surgery programs, when compared to traditional perioperative care, are associated with reduced primary hospital length of stay in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and the reference lists were searched for relevant articles. Only randomized controlled trials comparing an enhanced recovery program with traditional postoperative care were included.ResultsThree of four included studies showed significantly shorter primary lengths of stay for patients enrolled in enhanced recovery programs. There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality when the two groups were compared [relative risk (RR) = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.12–2.38; test for heterogeneity, p = 0.40 and I2 = 0], and patients in enhanced recovery programs were less likely to develop postoperative complications (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42–0.88; test for heterogeneity, p = 0.95 and I2 = 0).Authors’ ConclusionsThere is some evidence to suggest that enhanced recovery after surgery programs are better than traditional perioperative care, but evidence from a larger, better quality randomized controlled trial is necessary.

A qualitative study to understand the barriers and enablers in implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery program.

OBJECTIVE Explore the barriers and enablers to adoption of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program by the multidisciplinary perioperative team responsible for the care of elective colorectal surgical patients. BACKGROUND ERAS programs include perioperative interventions that when used together have led to decreased length of stay while increasing patient recovery and satisfaction. Despite the known benefits of ERAS programs, uptake remains slow. METHODS Semistructured interviews were conducted with general surgeons, anesthesiologists, and ward nurses at 7 University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals to identify potential barriers and enablers to adoption of 18 ERAS interventions. Grounded theory was used to thematically analyze the transcribed interviews. RESULTS Nineteen general surgeons, 18 anesthesiologists, and 18 nurses participated. The mean time of each interview was 18 minutes. Lack of manpower, poor communication and collaboration, resistance to change, and patient factors were cited by most as barriers. Discipline-specific issues were identified although most related to resistance to change. Overall, interviewees were supportive of implementation of a standardized ERAS program and agreed that a standardized guideline based on best evidence; standardized order sets; and education of the staff, patients, and families are essential. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary perioperative staff supported the implementation of an ERAS program at the University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals. However, major barriers were identified, including the need for patient education, increased communication and collaboration, and better evidence for ERAS interventions. Identifying these barriers and enablers is the first step toward successfully implementing an ERAS program.

Development of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Guideline and Implementation Strategy Based on the Knowledge-to-action Cycle.

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to increase recovery, decrease complications, and reduce length of stay. However, they are difficult to implement. Objective: To develop and implement an ERAS clinical practice guideline (CPG) at multiple hospitals. Methods: A tailored strategy based on the Knowledge-to-action (KTA) cycle was used to develop and implement an ERAS CPG at 15 academic hospitals in Canada. This included an initial audit to identify gaps and interviews to assess barriers and enablers to implementation. Implementation included development of an ERAS guideline by a multidisciplinary group, communities of practice led by multidiscipline champions (surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses) both provincially and locally, educational tools, and clinical pathways as well as audit and feedback. Results: The initial audit revealed there was greater than 75% compliance in only 2 of 18 CPG recommendations. Main themes identified by stakeholders were that the CPG must be based on best evidence, there must be increased communication and collaboration among perioperative team members, and patient education is essential. ERAS and Pain Management CPGs were developed by a multidisciplinary team and have been adopted at all hospitals. Preliminary data from more than 1000 patients show that the uptake of recommended interventions varies but despite this, mean length of stay has decreased with low readmission rates and adverse events. Conclusions: On the basis of short-term findings, our results suggest that a tailored implementation strategy based on the KTA cycle can be used to successfully implement an ERAS program at multiple sites.

Simulation in Surgery: Perfecting the Practice

The apprenticeship model that surgical training has traditionally relied on has proven to be an expensive, time-consuming, and inconsistent model for producing skilled surgeons. Combined with increased public scrutiny on patient safety, financial concerns, restricted work hours, and expanding skill requirements, it has become clear that a new pedagogic paradigm is required. This article reviews the evidence supporting the need and justification of simulation in surgical education and explores the existing and potential roles of simulation in the training and evaluation of future surgeons.

Clinical and Economic Comparison of Laparoscopic to Open Liver Resections Using a 2-to-1 Matched Pair Analysis: An Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND Surgical resection of hepatic lesions is associated with intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our center has introduced a laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) program over the past 3 years. Our objective is to describe the initial clinical experience with LLR, including a detailed cost analysis. STUDY DESIGN We evaluated all LLRs from 2006 to 2010. Each was matched to 2 open cases for number of segments removed, patient age, and background liver histology. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and the Charlson comorbidity index were calculated retrospectively. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used to compare surgical and economic outcomes. Analyses were performed including and excluding converted cases. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients underwent attempted LLR. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Estimated blood loss was lower in the LLR vs the open liver resection (OLR) group, at 250 mL and 500 mL, respectively (p < 0.001). Median operating room times were 240 minutes and 270 minutes in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively (p = 0.14). Eight cases were converted to open (14%): 2 for bleeding, 2 for anatomic uncertainty, 1 for tumor size, 1 for margins, 1 for inability to localize the tumor, and 1 for adhesions. Median length of stay was lower for LLR at 5 days vs 6 days for OLR (p < 0.001). There was no difference in frequency of ICU admission, reoperation, 30-day emergency room visit, or 30-day readmission rates. Median overall cost for LLR was lower at

Psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) as a depression screening tool for bariatric surgery candidates.

11,376 vs

Development and validation of a pediatric laparoscopic surgery simulator

12,523 for OLR (p = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS Our experience suggests that LLR confers the clinical advantages of reduced operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay while decreasing overall cost. LLR, therefore, appears to be a clinically and fiscally advantageous approach in properly selected patients.

Understanding Surgical Residents’ Postoperative Practices and Barriers and Enablers to the Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Guideline

BACKGROUND Major depressive disorder has been shown in some studies to attenuate weight loss and psychosocial outcomes following surgery. Given the potential implications of depression on surgery outcomes, presurgery psychiatric assessment is recommended to assess suitability for bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in detecting depression in bariatric surgery candidates. METHODS Bariatric surgery candidates (n = 244) completed the PHQ-9 and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) as part of their presurgery psychiatric assessment. The operating characteristics of the PHQ-9 were examined. The study was replicated in an independent sample of bariatric surgery candidates (n = 275). RESULTS Rates of current and lifetime major depressive episodes were 1.6% to 3.8% and 33.8% to 35.5%, respectively, as assessed by the MINI. According to the PHQ-9, 52.5% to 54.9% of patients exceeded the cutoff for moderate depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10), and 27.6% to 29.1% for moderate severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 15). The optimal dichotomization cutoff point on the PHQ-9 was ≥15 in both studies (sensitivity 75%, specificity 75% to 76%). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that the PHQ-9 has adequate operating characteristics compared with a criterion standard measure. A PHQ-9 cutoff of 15 is recommended to identify bariatric surgery candidates who may require further assessment of depressive symptoms.

MIS training in Canada: a national survey of general surgery residents

BACKGROUND Although a validated simulator exists for adult laparoscopy, there is no pediatric counterpart. The objective of this study is to develop and validate a pediatric laparoscopic surgery (PLS) simulator. METHODS A PLS simulator was developed. Participants were stratified according to level of expertise and tested on the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) and PLS simulators. A subsequent group was tested exclusively on the PLS simulator. RESULTS The PLS intracorporeal suturing score was lower than its adult counterpart (P = .02). The PLS pattern-cutting score was higher than in the FLS simulator (P < .001). If the latter was eliminated from the calculation, the revised total FLS score was significantly better than the revised PLS score. When all participants were combined, total PLS scores as well as performance on 3 of 5 tasks allowed differentiation between novice, intermediate, and expert. CONCLUSIONS The PLS simulator was able to discriminate between the novice, intermediate, and expert using the total PLS score and the performance on 3 of the 5 tasks, thus providing evidence for construct validity. The other 2 tasks will require formal modification or a change in the scoring metrics to establish their independent construct validity.