Author Archives: Hannah

Risk of postoperative wound infections in neck dissections

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week focused on complications after neck dissections.

Reference: Man LX, Beswick DM, Johnson JT. Antibiotic prophylaxis in uncontaminated neck dissection. Laryngoscope. 2011 Jul;121(7):1473-1477. doi:10.1002/lary.21815.

Summary: Man et al (2011) performed a retrospective chart review of 273 uncontaminated neck dissections in order to identify risk factors for postoperative wound infections and to describe the outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis use. Only 15%

Wound infection was not associated with age, sex, tobacco and alcohol use, history of head/neck surgery, history of radiation/chemotherapy, or number of drains placed during surgery.

Wound infection was independently associated with longer operative time, local/pedicled flap closure and radical or extended neck dissection (p.1474).

Their results for risk of wound infection by type of dissection are below. All 9 wound infections occurred in those receiving intraoperative antibiotics only (4) or intra- and postoperative antiobiotics (5).

neck dissection type

Additionally, this study found that antibiotics are prescribed more frequently to older patients, possibly because they are perceived as less healthy (p.1475). Patients requiring more extensive operations are at a higher risk of postoperative infection, as are those who undergo an operation involving the re-positioning of the patient’s head thus exposing the surgical field (p.1476). The under-reporting of postoperative complications in outpatient settings may also contribute to an underestimate of wound infection.

This review was not able to confirm or support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in uncontaminated neck dissection significantly lowers the risk of infection. Still, the authors recommend its use “for more extensive lymphadenectomy procedures including radical neck dissection, extended neck dissection, or those requiring longer operative time” (p.1477).

 

Improving communication during patient handoffs between the OR and ICU

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week focused on improving handoffs in the ICU.

Reference: Mukhopadhyay D, et al. Implementation of a standardized handoff protocol for post-opearative admissions to the surgical intensive care unit. American Journal of Surgery. 2018 Jan;215(1):28-36. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.005.

Summary:  Mukhopadhyay et al’s (2018) recent prospective intervention study explored the effectiveness of a standard protocol for patient transfer from the OR to the SICU. Prior to implementing a new protocol a team of individuals observed 31 patient handoffs. Next, the protocol was implemented over a 6 month period in which all caregivers involved in handoffs attended mandatory educational sessions. Finally, 31 handoffs were observed by the same team of individuals who had observed the previous handoffs.

Services included in the study: thoracic, neurosurgery, trauma, acute care, vascular, surgical oncology, urology, ENT, orthopedics, plastics, and neurointerventional radiology.

Handoff elements observed for completion: presence of all team-members at handoff; identification of patient and caregivers; detailed surgeon report; detailed anesthesia report; and duration/occurrence of key activities (time to ventilator, monitor set-up, total handoff duration).

Results: Pre- and post-implementation performance was measured on all handoff elements listed above. These were elements identified as crucial to the safe and successful patient transfer.

Notably, surgeons were the only group that believed communication was effective in the existing process. Anesthesia and ICU Nursing were dissatisfied. All three groups agreed that a more structured protocol was necessary for safe patient care (p.29).

The figure below show the changes in degree of detail in surgical reports (p.35). The article provides additional charts and data on other pre- and post- findings.

handoff report

Additional reading: Karamchandani K, et al. A multidisciplinary handoff process to standardize the transfer of care between the intensive care unit and the operating room. Quality Management in Health Care. 2018 Oct/Dec;27(4):215-222. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000187.

The Prospective Peri-operative Enoxaparin Cohort Trial (PROSPECT)

Posted on by
Reply

Reference: Dunn AS, Spyropoulos AC, Turpie AG. Bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants who require surgery: the Prospective Peri-operative Enoxaparin Cohort Trial (PROSPECT). Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2007 Nov;5(11):2211-2218.

Summary: Due to limited data on the incidence of peri-operative thromboemobolic and bleeding during bridge therapy, there is no agreement on optimal peri-operative management of patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs). Dunn et al sought to “examine the incidence of major bleeding of a peri-operative strategy using once-daily therapeutic-dose enoxaparin administered primarily at home, and the effect, if any, of the extensiveness of the procedure on the risk of bleeding during bridge therapy” (p.2211-2212).

The study involved 24 sites in North America between January 2002 and August 2003. The figure below shows the study’s peri-operative management protocol (p.2212): periop mgmt2

 

Safety outcomes:

  • Incidence of major bleeding while on enoxaparin or in the 24 hours following cessation of enoxaparin treatment
    • Occurred in 3.5% (95% CI: 1.6-6.5)
    • Invasive procedures: 1.4%
    • Minor surgery: 0%
    • Major surgery:  27.5%
  • Rate of minor bleeding while on enoxaparin, or within 24 hours of discontinuation
    • Occurred in 108 patients (41.5%, 95% CI:35.7-47.6)
    • Invasive procedures: 44.6%
    • Minor surgery: 47.2%
    • Major surgery: 20.0%

Efficacy outcomes:

  • Incidence of arterial thromboembolic events for patients with afib
    • 4 events out of 176 patients (2.3%, 95% CI: 0.6-5.7)
    • 2 TIAs, 0 strokes, 2 patients had peripheral arterial thromboembolic events
  • Incidence of venous thromboembolic events for patients with a history of DVT.
    • 1 event out of 96 patients (1.0%, 95% CI: 0.03-5.7)
    • None fatal

Bleeding risk is high when bridging therapy is done peri-operatively in major surgery. In this study, there were 8 instances of major bleeding among 40 total patients in major surgery. Out of 220 invasive procedures or minor surgery, there was only 1 major bleeding event.

The value of diverting loop ileostomy to prevent low pelvic anastomotic leak

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week focused on the impact of diverting ileostomy on low rectal anastamoses.

Reference: Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Rutegard J, Simert G, et al. Defunctioning Stoma Reduces Symptomatic Anastomotic Leakage After Low Anterior Resection of the Rectum for Cancer: A Randomized Multicenter Trial. Annals of Surgery. 2007 Aug;246(2):2017-214. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180603024

Summary: Anastomotic leakage is a feared complication of rectal resections, reportedly occuring in 1-24% and increasing postoperative morbidity from 1-8% to 6-22% (Matthiessen et al, 2007). In a randomized multicenter trial of 234 patients (no easy feat for surgical technique studies), Matthiessen et al (2007) found “patients without diverting stoma leaked in 28.0%, compared to 10.3% of those with diverting stomas (OR = 3.4; 95% CI, 1.6-6.9; P < 0.001), a result not previously demonstrated in any randomized trial” (p.207).

surgmm_leakage

Among patients randomized for diverting ostomy, surgeons demonstrated a preference for loop ileostomy vs transverse colostomy (112/116) and in all 25 urgent diverting stomas. In 97% of the patients (227/234), surgeons chose to use pelvic drainage. All anastomotoses were made with a stapling device, none were handsewn.

The authors conclude that their trial accurately demonstrates a decreased rate of symptomatic ansatomotic leakage in diverted patients in low anterior resection. This is the first randomized trial to illustrate this result and, therefore, they recommend the use of a diverting stoma in low anterior resection of the rectum.

(Matthiessen et al, 2007, p.210)

Additional reading: Hanna MH, Vinci A, Pigazzi A. Diverting Ileostomy in Colorectal Surgery: When is it Necessary? Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2015 Feb;400(2):145-152. doi:10.1007/s00423-015-1275-1.