[The specialty of anesthesia outside Western medicine with special consideration of personal experience in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mongolia]

[175 years of anesthesia and narcosis-Towards a "human right to unconsciousness"]

The Ether Day, a key moment in the history of mankind, commemorates its 175th anniversary on 16 October 2021. On that day the dentist William T. G. Morton successfully gave the first public ether anesthesia in Boston. From then on it was possible to save people from pain with justifiable risk and at the same time to protect them from psychological damage by inducing unconsciousness. The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, one of the most renowned and effective philosophers of our times, deduced that from then on humans, to some extent, had a right to unconsciousness when in psychophysical distress. This postulate unfolded from his concept of "anthropotechnics" developed around 1997, meaning the idea of treating human nature as an object of possible improvements. According to Sloterdijk, in favorable cases a synthesis of man and technology can result in a significant improvement of human capabilities in the sense of "enhancement", i.e. an increase, an improvement or even an expansion of intellectual, physical or psychological possibilities, as it were in a transgression of the human (so-called transhumanism). Man should go into vertical tension, i.e. strive for higher aims and exploit his inherent potential, he should not dwell in the horizontal. This is not meant as an appeal but as an imperative: "You must change your life!". In this context modern anesthesia may prove helpful: be operated on by others in order to undergo an enhancement. Or, in its most extreme form, the operation in the "auto-operational curved space", a person can even operate on himself as has been dramatically demonstrated by Rogozov, a young Russian physician and trainee surgeon who successfully performed a self-appendectomy under local anesthesia at the Novolazarevskaya Antarctic Station in 1961; however, the implementation of this idea is a long way off. On the one hand, many countries lack qualified personnel in sufficiently large numbers to perform even vital operations with patients under anesthesia. On the other hand, over the decades it has become clear that anesthesia is obviously beneficial for mankind in that it offers relief from pain and psychological stress but that it can also often show its dark side: substance abuse, use of anesthetics in torture and in executions. In addition, the role of anesthetics in resuscitation, palliative care, and allaying executions is unclear or controversial. Finally, the necessary formal legal steps to acknowledge a "human right to unconsciousness" have not yet been implemented.

Laparoscopic experience and attitudes toward a low-cost laparoscopic system among surgeons in East, Central, and Southern Africa: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has become standard of care in high-income countries but is rarely accessible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study assessed experience with laparoscopy and attitudes toward a low-cost laparoscopic system among surgeons in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

A survey assessing current laparoscopic practice and feedback on a low-cost laparoscopic system was administered to attendees of the College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa (COSECSA) Scientific Conference between December 4 and December 6, 2019 in Kampala, Uganda.

RESULTS

Fifty-six surgeons from 14 countries participated. A majority were male (n = 46, 82%) general surgeons (n = 37, 66%) from tertiary/teaching hospitals (n = 36, 64%). For those with training in laparoscopy (n = 33, 59%), 22 (67%) reported less than 1 year of training and over half (n = 17, 52%) reported 1 month or less. Overall, a minority (n = 21, 38%) used laparoscopy in current practice, with 57% (n = 12) of those performing laparoscopy less than once per week. The most common laparoscopic surgeries performed were cholecystectomy (n = 15), diagnostic laparoscopy (n = 14), and appendectomy (n = 12). Few surgeons were performing more complex cases (n = 5). Barriers to laparoscopy included poor access to training equipment (n = 34, 61%), mentors (n = 33, 59%), laparoscopic equipment (n = 31, 55%), equipment maintenance (n = 25, 45%), access to consumable supplies (n = 21, 38%), and cost (n = 31, 55%). Fifty-two participants (93%) were interested in increasing their use of laparoscopy; the majority felt that a low-cost laparoscope (n = 52, 93%) and lift retractor for gasless laparoscopy (n = 46, 82%) would serve an unmet need in their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

While the use of laparoscopy is currently limited in COSECSA countries, there is a significant interest among surgeons to increase implementation. A low-cost, durable laparoscopic system was viewed as a potential solution to the current barriers and could improve implementation in LMICs.

Availability of critical care resources to treat patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in Africa: a self-reported, continent-wide survey of anaesthesia providers

Introduction

It is unknown whether resources necessary to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and sepsis bundles are available in Africa. This self-reported, continent-wide survey compared the availability of these resources between African and high-income countries, and between two African regions (Sub-Sahara Africa vs. South Africa, Mauritius and the Northern African countries).

Methods

The study was conducted as an anonymous questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey among anaesthesia providers attending a transcontinental congress. Based on the respondents' country of practice, returned questionnaires were grouped into African and high-income countries. The questionnaire contained 74 items and evaluated all material resources required to implement the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Group comparisons were performed with the Chi², Fisher's Exact or Mann Whitney U test, as appropriate.

Results

The overall response rate was 74.3% (318/428). Three-hundred-seven questionnaires were analysed (African countries, n = 263; high-income countries, n = 44). Respondents from African hospitals were less likely to have an emergency room (85.5 vs. 97.7%, P = 0.03) or intensive care unit (73.8 vs. 100%, P < 0.001) than respondents from high-income countries. Drugs, equipment, and disposable materials required to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines or sepsis bundles were less frequently available in African than high-income countries. Of all African and Sub-Saharan African countries, 1.5% (4/263) and 1.2% (3/248) of respondents had the resources available to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in entirety. The percentage of implementable recommendations was lower in African than in high-income countries (72.6 (57.7 to 87.7)% vs. 100 (100 to 100)%, P < 0.001) and lower in Sub-Saharan African countries than South Africa, Mauritius, and the Northern African countries (72.6 (56.2 to 86.3)% vs. 90.4 (71.2 to 94.5)%, P = 0.02).

Conclusions

The results of this self-reported survey strongly suggest that the most recent Surviving Sepsis guidelines cannot be implemented in Africa, particularly not in Sub-Saharan Africa, due to a shortage of required hospital facilities, equipment, drugs and disposable materials. However, availability of resources to implement the majority of strong Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and the sepsis bundles may allow modification of current sepsis guidelines based on available resources and implementation of a substantial number of life-saving interventions into sepsis care in Africa.