Safety of maintaining elective and emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with the introduction of a Protected Elective Surgical Unit (PESU): A cross-specialty evaluation of 30-day outcomes in 9,925 patients undergoing surgery in a University Health Board

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented health care challenges mandating surgical service reconfiguration. Within our hospital, emergency and elective streams were separated and self-contained Protected Elective Surgical Units were developed to mitigate against infection-related morbidity. Aims of this study were to determine the risk of COVID-19 transmission and mortality and whether the development of Protected Elective Surgical Units can result in significant reduction in risk.

Methods

A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients from 18 specialties undergoing elective or emergency surgery under general, spinal, or epidural anaesthetic over a 12-month study period was undertaken. Primary outcome measures were 30-day postoperative COVID-19 transmission rate and mortality. Secondary adjusted analyses were performed to ascertain hospital and Protected Elective Surgical Unit transmission rates.

Results

Between 15 March 2020 and 14 March 2021, 9,925 patients underwent surgery: 6,464 (65.1%) elective, 5,116 (51.5%) female, and median age 57 (39–70). A total of 69.5% of all procedures were performed in Protected Elective Surgical Units. Overall, 30-day postoperative COVID-19 transmission was 2.8% (3.4% emergency vs 1.2% elective P < .001). Protected Elective Surgical Unit postoperative transmission was significantly lower than non–Protected Elective Surgical Unit (0.42% vs 3.2% P < .001), with an adjusted likely in-hospital Protected Elective Surgical Unit transmission of 0.04%. The 30-day all-cause mortality was 1.7% and was 14.6% in COVID-19–positive patients. COVID-19 infection, age > 70, male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade > 2, and emergency surgery were all independently associated with mortality.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that Protected Elective Surgical Units can facilitate high-volume elective surgical services throughout peaks of the COVID-19 pandemic while minimising viral transmission and mortality. However, mortality risk associated with perioperative COVID-19 infection remains high.

276 Safety of Maintaining Elective and Emergency Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic with the Introduction of an Innovative Protected Elective Surgical Unit (PESU): A Cross-Specialty Evaluation of 30-Day Outcomes in 9925 Patients Undergoing Surgery in a University Health Board

Aim

High quality mobile health applications (mhealth apps) have the potential to enhance the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of burns. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether the quality of mhealth apps for burns care is being adequately assessed. The secondary aim was to determine whether these apps meet UK regulatory standards.

Method

We searched AMED, BNI, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Embase, Emcare, Medline and PsychInfo to identify studies assessing mhealth app quality for burns. The PRISMA reporting guideline was adhered to. Two independent reviewers screened s to identify relevant studies. We analysed whether seven established domains of mhealth app quality were assessed: design, information/content, usability, functionality, ethical issues, security/privacy, and user-perceived value.

Results

Of the 28 included studies, none assessed all seven domains of quality. Design was assessed in 4/28 studies; information/content in 26/28 studies; usability in 12/28 studies; functionality in 10/28 studies; ethical issues were never assessed in any studies; security/privacy was not assessed; subjective assessment was made in 9/28 studies. 17/28 studies included apps that met the definition of ‘medical device’ according to MHRA guidance, yet only one app was appropriately certified with the UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) mark.

Conclusions

The quality of mHealth apps for burns are not being adequately assessed. The majority of apps should be considered medical devices according to UK standards, but only one was appropriately certified. Regulatory bodies should support mhealth app developers, so as to improve quality control whilst simultaneously fostering innovation.

503 Top 100 Most Influential Manuscripts in Erectile Dysfunction: A Bibliometric Analysis

Aim

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition encountered by an array of subspecialists and is the most cited research topic within the field of andrology. This bibliometric analysis aims to identify the most influential papers that inform current clinical practice and likely shape future research.

Method

The Thompson Reuters Web of Science citation database was interrogated using search terms to cover the breadth of erectile dysfunction. Results were ranked according to citation number with country of origin, journal, topic, year of publication, author, and institution also analysed.

Results

The search criteria matched 12,570 manuscripts. The top 100 highest citation ranged from 3013 to 161 (median 229.5). The most cited by Feldman et al, 1994 reports the prevalence and risk factors of ED within the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. The most manuscripts were published by the Journal of Urology (n = 15) with a total of 7913 citations. Institutions from the USA contributed the majority (n = 55) with the UK (n = 14) second. The most common theme represented was epidemiology (n = 46) followed by treatment (n = 27).

Conclusions

This analysis provides a list of the most influential manuscripts within ED and illustrates what can be considered a ‘highly citable’ paper. The most influential papers in Erectile Dysfunction remain seminal works from the end of the last century. The most cited manuscript (Feldman et al) has been cited 194 times in the last seventeen months showing its continued value. Only one paper published within the last decade has reached the top twenty exemplifying the relative lack of novel influential publications.