Venous thromboembolic prophylaxis: current practice of surgeons in Australia and New Zealand for major abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical prophylaxis for venous thrombo-embolic disease (VTE) includes risk assessment, chemical prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis (graduated compression stockings [GCS] and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices [IPCD]). Although there is overwhelming evidence for the need and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk, only about a third of those who are at risk of VTE receive appropriate prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

There is debate as to the best combination of VTE prophylaxis following abdominal surgery due to lack of evidence. The aim of this survey was to understand this gap between knowledge and practice.

METHODS

In 2019 and 2020, a survey was conducted to investigate the current practice of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for major abdominal surgery, with a focus on colorectal resections. The study received ethics approval and involved distributing an 11-item questionnaire to members of two professional surgical societies: the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) and the General Surgeons Australia (GSA).

RESULTS

From 214 surgeons: 100% use chemical prophylaxis, 68% do not use a risk assessment tool, 27% do not vary practice according to patient risk factors while > 90% use all three forms of VTE prophylaxis at some stage of treatment. Most surgeons do not vary practice between laparoscopic and open colectomy/major abdominal surgery and only 33% prescribe post-discharge chemical prophylaxis. 42% of surgeons surveyed had equipoise for a clinical trial on the use of IPCDs and the vast majority (> 95%) feel that IPCDs should provide at least a 2% improvement in VTE event rate in order to justify their routine use.

CONCLUSION

Most surgeons in Australia and New Zealand do not use risk assessment tools and use all three forms of prophylaxis regardless. Therfore there is a gap between practice and VTE prophylaxis for the use of mechanical prophylaxis options. Further research is required to determine whether dual modality mechanical prophylaxis is incrementally efficacious. Trial Registration- Not Applicable.

Surgeon perceptions of volume threshold and essential practices for pediatric thyroidectomy(✰)

INTRODUCTION

The topics of sub-specialization and regionalization of care have garnered increased attention among pediatric surgeons. Thyroid surgeries are one such sub-specialty and are commonly concentrated within practices. A national survey was conducted examining current surgeon practices and beliefs surrounding pediatric thyroid surgery.

METHODS

Non-resident members of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) were surveyed in October 2020. Respondents were stratified based on self-reported thyroid surgical experience. Those who performed thyroid surgery were asked about surgical technique and operative practices; those who did not were asked about referral patterns. All respondents were asked about perceptions surrounding the volume-outcome relationship for pediatric thyroid surgery.

RESULTS

Among 1015 APSA members, 405 (40%) responded, with 79% (317/400) practicing at academic hospitals, 58% (232/401) practicing in major metropolitan area, and 41% (161/392) with over 10 years of attending pediatric surgery experience. Most respondents (88%, n = 356) agreed that thyroid surgery volume affects outcome, though wide variation was reported in the annual case threshold for "high volume" surgery. Eighty-four respondents (21%) reported performing ≥ 1 pediatric thyroid surgery in the past year. Of these, 82% routinely use recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring, 32% routinely send hemithyroidectomy patients home the same day, and there was little consensus surrounding postoperative hypocalcemia management. The majority of respondents endorse performing thyroid procedures with a colleague.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric thyroid surgery appears to be performed by a subset of active pediatric surgeons, most of whom endorse the use of a dual operating team. More evidence is needed to build consensus around additional perioperative practices.

Patient Satisfaction With Decision Making Does Not Correlate With Patient Centeredness of Surgeons

BACKGROUND

High-quality decision making is important in patient-centered care. Although patient involvement in decision making varies widely, most patients desire to share in decision making. The Press-Ganey Patient Satisfaction survey includes questions that measure patients' perceptions of their providers' efforts to involve them in decision making (PGDM). We hypothesized that higher PGDM scores would correlate with higher scores on a validated measure of patient centeredness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgical providers at a university hospital who routinely receive Press-Ganey scores received a survey that included the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), a validated tool that measures the provider's orientation toward patient centeredness on a continuous six-point scale: score ≥5 = high, 4.57-5 = moderate, and <4.57 = low and includes nine-item "caring" or "sharing" subscales. We compared PPOS scores to PGDM scores, averaged from April 2015 to January 2016.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 112 (75%) of surgical providers responded to the survey. Fifty-two (46%) had PGDM scores available and 26% achieved a perfect score on the PGDM. The overall PPOS scores were low, with a mean of 4.2 (SD = 0.5). The PPOS was not correlated with the PGDM, correlation coefficient (rs) = -0.07 (CI: -0.34-0.21, P = 0.63). Similarly, the two subscales of the PPOS did not correlate with the PGDM with rs = -0.15 (CI: -0.41-0.13, P = 0.29) for "caring" and rs = -0.04 (CI: -0.31-0.23, P = 0.76) for "sharing".

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical providers scored low in patient centeredness using the PPOS, over one-quarter (26%) of them rank in the top 1% on the PGDM. No correlation was found between providers' patient centeredness and their patients' perceptions of efforts to include them in decision making.

(FLiP) fracture-table vs. lateral positioning for femoral intramedullary nailing: A survey of orthopaedic surgeon preferences

BACKGROUND

Femoral shaft fractures are common and severe injuries that often occur alongside other complex, high-energy injuries. Definitive internal fixation using reamed, locked intramedullary nailing (IMN) has become the standard of care in adequately resuscitated patients, commonly performed in the supine position with utilization of a fracture table. The lateral position, without the use of traction, offers an alternative that may be associated with lower complication rates. Given the lack of high-quality evidence in the area, this study was designed to assess the attitudes, knowledge base and preferences of Orthopaedic surgeons regarding patient positioning during antegrade IMN of femoral shaft fractures.

METHODS

Orthopedic surgeon members of the AO North America, Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Ontario Orthopaedic Association were invited to participate in a web-based survey addressing the management of femoral shaft fractures and the need for further research in this area.

RESULTS

Most surgeons (56%) favored treating mid-shaft femur fractures in the supine position using a fracture table compared to supine/sloppy lateral (29%) or direct lateral (12%) with the leg free draped. Canadian surgeons showed a significantly higher preference for supine positioning with a fracture table when compared to their American colleagues. Academic and higher-level trauma center surgeons were more likely to prefer the sloppy lateral or direct lateral positioning with manual traction compared to community surgeons. The most commonly cited perceived barrier for utilizing the lateral position was expertise and lack of available assistants. Forty-five percent of respondents expressed interest in being involved in a randomized control trial comparing lateral positioning vs. supine with traction.

CONCLUSION

Consensus surrounding the positioning and utilization of traction in femoral shaft fractures is lacking. Given the perceived possible benefits and reduced complications using the lateral position and free-leg draping, further research is warranted to determine the optimal positioning for these injuries during femoral IMN.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV STUDY TYPE: Cross-sectional Survey.

Surgeon Survey Shows No Adverse Events With MRI in Patients With Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods (MCGRs)

STUDY DESIGN

Surgeon survey.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following implantation of magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs) is associated with any adverse events.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Magnetically controlled growing rods have been shown to reduce the need for repeated surgical procedures and improve costs when compared to traditional growing rods, but concerns about MRI compatibility exist. MRIs are often clinically indicated in the EOS population.

METHODS

Pediatric spine surgeons who are members of the Growing Spine Study Group, Children's Spine Study Group, and early international users of this technology were surveyed regarding MRI use after performing MCGR surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 118 surgeons were surveyed. Four surgeons reported that 10 patients had an MRI with an implanted MCGR. Loss of fixation (0%, 0/10), movement of implants (0%, 0/10), unintended lengthening/shortening (0%, 0/10), or noticeable heating of MCGR (0%, 0/10) were not observed. No problems were observed with function of the MCGR following MRI, and a mean of 2.1 mm was obtained at the next lengthening (range, 0.5-3.0 mm). Two patients had brain MRIs, both of which could be interpreted. All cervical spine MRIs could be interpreted without excessive artifact (100%, 7/7). Six patients had MRIs of the thoracic or lumbar spine, but these were considered uninterpretable as a result of artifact from the MCGR device (0%, 0/6).

CONCLUSION

These are the first reported cases of MRI use in humans with MCGR. There were no adverse events observed. MCGR rods lengthened as expected following MRI. MRIs of the brain and cervical spine were able to be interpreted, but MRIs of the thoracolumbar spine could not be interpreted because of MCGR artifact. MRIs can be safely performed in patients with MCGRs; however, MRIs of thoracic and thoracolumbar spine may be of limited clinical benefit because of artifact.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.