Unpacking the Broad Landscape of Intraoperative Stressors for Clinical Personnel: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

Purpose

The main goals of this mixed-methods systematic review are to identify what types of intraoperative stressors for operating room personnel have been reported in collected studies and examine the characteristics of each intraoperative stressor.

Methods

With a systematic literature search, we retrieved empirical studies examining intraoperative stress published between 2010 and 2020. To synthesize findings, we applied two approaches. First, a textual narrative synthesis was employed to summarize key study information of the selected studies by focusing on surgical platforms and study participants. Second, a thematic synthesis was employed to identify and characterize intraoperative stressors and their subtypes.

Results

Ninety-four studies were included in the review. Regarding the surgical platforms, the selected studies mainly focused on minimally invasive surgery and few studies examined issues around robotic surgery. Most studies examined intra-operative stress from surgeons' perspectives but rarely considered other clinical personnel such as nurses and anesthetists. Among seven identified stressors, technical factors were the most frequently examined followed by individual, operating room environmental, interpersonal, temporal, patient, and organizational factors.

Conclusion

By presenting stressors as multifaceted elements affecting collaboration and interaction between multidisciplinary team members in the operating room, we discuss the potential interactions between stressors which should be further investigated to build a safe and efficient environment for operating room personnel.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.