Telehealth follow-up after cholecystectomy is safe in veterans.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought many challenges including barriers to delivering high-quality surgical care and follow-up while minimizing the risk of infection. Telehealth has been increasingly utilized for post-operative visits, yet little data exists to guide surgeons in its use. We sought to determine safety and efficacy of telehealth follow-up in patients undergoing cholecystectomy during the global pandemic at a VA Medical Center (VAMC). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients undergoing cholecystectomy at a level 1A VAMC over a 2-year period from August 2019 to August 2021. Baseline demographics, post-operative complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits and need for additional procedures were reviewed. Patients who experienced a complication prior to discharge, underwent a concomitant procedure, had non-absorbable skin closure, had new diagnosis of malignancy or were discharged home with drain(s) were ineligible for telehealth follow-up and excluded. RESULTS: Over the study period, 179 patients underwent cholecystectomy; 30 (17%) were excluded as above. 20 (13%) missed their follow-up, 52 (35%) were seen via telehealth and 77 (52%) followed-up in person. There was no difference between the two groups regarding baseline demographics or intra-operative variables. There was no significant difference in post-operative complications [4 (8%) vs 6 (8%), p > 0.99], ED utilization [5 (10%) vs 7 (9%), p = 0.78], 30-day readmission [3 (6%) vs 6 (8%), p = 0.74] or need for additional procedures [2 (4%) vs 4 (5%), p = 0.41] between telehealth and in-person follow-up. CONCLUSION: Telehealth follow-up after cholecystectomy is safe and effective in Veterans. There were no differences in outcomes between patients that followed up in-person vs those that were seen via phone or video. Routine telehealth follow-up after uncomplicated cholecystectomy should be considered for all patients.

Robotic stray energy with constant-voltage versus constant-power regulating electrosurgical generators.

INTRODUCTION: Stray energy from surgical energy instruments can cause unintended thermal injuries. There are no published data regarding electrosurgical generators and their influence on stray energy transfer during robotic surgery. There are two approved generators for the DaVinci Xi robotic platform: a constant-voltage regulating generator (cVRG) and a constant-power regulating generator (cPRG). The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare stray energy transfer in the robotic Xi platform using a cVRG versus a cPRG. METHODS: An ex vivo bovine model was used to simulate a standard multiport robotic surgery. The DaVinci Xi (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) robotic platform was attached to a trainer box using robotic ports. A 5 s, open-air activation of the monopolar scissors was done with commonly used electrosurgical settings using a cPRG (ForceTriad, Covidien-Medtronic, Boulder, CO) or cVRG (ERBE VIO 300 dV 2.0, ERBE USA, Marietta, GA). Stray energy transfer was quantified as the change in tissue temperature (°C) nearest the tip of the assistance grasper (which was not in direct contact with the active monopolar scissors). RESULTS: Stray energy transfer occurred with both generators. Utilizing common, comparable settings for standard coagulation, significantly less stray energy was transferred with the cVRG versus cPRG (4.4 ± 1.6 °C vs. 41.1 ± 13.0 °C, p < 0.001). Similarly, less stray energy was transferred using cut modes with the cVRG compared to the cPRG (5.61 ± 1.79 °C vs. 33.9 ± 18.4 °C, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Stray energy transfer increases tissue temperatures more than 45C in the DaVinci Xi robotic platform. Low voltage modalities, such as cut or blend; as well as a cVRG generator, significantly reduces stray energy. Robotic surgeons can minimize the risk of stray energy injuries by using these low risk modes and/or generator.

Visitors and observers otter-ly influence the behavior and enclosure use of zoo-housed giant otters.

The potential impact of human presence on captive animal behavior has recently been the focus of considerable research interest, especially following 2020 and 2021 periods of enforced closure as a result of COVID-19 opening restrictions. It is important to investigate whether human presence represents an enriching or stressful stimulus to a range of zoo-housed species. In 2020, during an easing of lockdown restrictions, investigations of the "visitor effect" and "observer effect" were carried out, using the giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) as a model species. To investigate the impact of both visitor and observer presence, otter behavior and space use was recorded for a pair of on-show and a pair of off-show otters. Observations were conducted using either a human observer, or cameras, allowing the researchers to investigate otter behavior when no one was present at the exhibits. The Electivity Index was used to assess the otters' use of four enclosure zones. Overall, otter behavior was significantly impacted by observer presence, though the impact of an observer differed between individual otters. Visitors had a minimal effect on otter enclosure use, whereas observers had a greater impact, whereby otters used their pools less frequently and houses more frequently when observers were present. However, this change in zone use differed between individuals, with more dominant otters tending to make use of indoor zones more often when observers were present. Zoos should consider the potential impact of human presence on their animals and use both behavior and space use when conducting their investigations.

Stray energy transfer in single-incision robotic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Stray energy transfer from surgical monopolar radiofrequency energy instruments can cause unintended thermal injuries during laparoscopic surgery. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery transfers more stray energy than traditional laparoscopic surgery. There is paucity of published data concerning stray energy during single-incision robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to quantify stray energy transfer during traditional, multiport robotic surgery (TRS) compared to single-incision robotic surgery (SIRS). METHODS: An in vivo porcine model was used to simulate a multiport or single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (DaVinci Si, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). A 5 s, open air activation of the monopolar scissors was done on 30 W and 60 W coag mode (ForceTriad, Covidien-Medtronic, Boulder, CO) and Swift Coag effect 3, max power 180 W (VIO 300D, ERBE USA, Marietta, GA). Temperature of the tissue (°C) adjacent to the tip of the assistant grasper or the camera was measured with a thermal camera (E95, FLIR Systems, Wilsonville, OR) to quantify stray energy transfer. RESULTS: Stray energy transfer was greater in the SIRS setup compared to TRS setup at the assistant grasper (11.6 ± 3.3 °C vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 °C, p = 0.013). Reducing power from 60 to 30 W significantly reduced stray energy transfer in SIRS (15.3 ± 3.4 °C vs. 11.6 ± 3.3 °C, p = 0.023), but not significantly for TRS (9.4 ± 2.5 °C vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 °C, p = 0.278). The use of a constant voltage regulating generator also minimized stray energy transfer for both SIRS (0.7 ± 0.4 °C, p < 0.001) and TRS (0.7 ± 0.4 °C, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More stray energy transfer occurs during single-incision robotic surgery than multiport robotic surgery. Utilizing a constant voltage regulating generator minimized stray energy transfer for both setups. These data can be used to guide robotic surgeons in their use of safe, surgical energy.

Patient-led Remote IntraCapillary pharmacoKinetic Sampling (fingerPRICKS) for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because of COVID-19 public health restrictions, telemedicine has replaced conventional outpatient follow up for most patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with biologic drugs. Innovative solutions to facilitate remote therapeutic drug monitoring are therefore required. Low-volume intracapillary blood sampling can be undertaken by patients at home and samples returned by post to central laboratories. We sought to report the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on requests for therapeutic drug monitoring and the equivalence, acceptability and effectiveness of low volume Patient-led Remote IntraCapillary pharmacoKinetic Sampling [fingerPRICKS] compared to conventional venepuncture. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional blood sampling methods comparison study and compared sample types using linear regression models. Drug and antidrug antibody levels were measured using standard ELISAs. Acceptability was assessed using a purpose-designed questionnaire. RESULTS: Therapeutic drug monitoring requests for adalimumab (96.5 [70.5-106] per week to 52 [33.5-57.0], p < 0.001) but not infliximab (184.5 [161.2-214.2] to 161 [135-197.5], p = 0.34) reduced during the first UK stay-at-home lockdown compared with the preceding 6 months. Fingerprick sampling was equivalent to conventional venepuncture for adalimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab drug, and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibody levels. The median [interquartile range] volume of serum obtained using intracapillary sampling was 195 µL [130-210]. More than 87% [90/103] of patients agreed that intracapillary testing was easy and 69% [71/103] preferred it to conventional venepuncture. In routine care, 75.3% [58/77] of patients returned two blood samples within 14 days to permit remote assessment of biologic therapeutic drug monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring can be undertaken using patient-led remote intracapillary blood sampling and has the potential to be a key adjunct to telemedicine in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Can We Routinely Employ the Use of Low-Pressure Gynaecological Laparoscopy? A Systematic Review.

Clinicians have learnt valuable lessons throughout the COV-SARS-2 pandemic, many of which have produced solutions that we aim to continue to implement within the foreseeable future. Optimising patients' surgical pathways to reduce the length of stay and complications is an area of particular importance, both for maximal utilisation of available resources and for reduction of the exposure of inpatient and elective patients to an increased risk of infection within healthcare facilities. The aim of this review was to investigate the possible implications of using low-pressure laparoscopic gynaecological surgery versus standard- or high-pressure pneumoperitoneum surgeries. The primary outcome was postoperative pain, with secondary outcomes including duration of surgery, length of inpatient stay and rate of complications. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 2020. We searched for published randomised control trials comparing low-pressure laparoscopic surgery (≤8 mmHg) to at least one additional standardised pneumoperitoneum pressure (≥12 mmHg and/or ≥15 mmHg). A total of 203 studies were reviewed, five of which were included in this analysis. Studies comparing low-pressure laparoscopic surgery against gasless abdominal cavities were excluded. The meta-analysis of the results was pooled and calculated within RevMan 5.0 software (Cochrane, London, England). Studies using a visual analogue scale (1-10) to compare low versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressures did not display a significant diminution of postoperative pain at ≤ 6 or 24 hours: -0.30 [95% CI -0.63, 0.03] and -0.66 [95% CI -1.35, 0.02], respectively. Studies additionally demonstrated worse visualisation of the surgical field within the low-pressure group (risk ratio 10.31; 95% CI, 1.29-82.38 I2 = 0%). Studies measuring postoperative pain using a numerical rating scale displayed significant pain reduction at all hours measured (p ≤ 0.01). The rate of intraoperative complications was 1% for all groups measured. Cumulative analysis of the duration of surgery did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.99). The pandemic has revealed new issues that must be addressed by clinicians to promote the safety of patients and the efficiency of inpatient stay. This review has paved the way for new possibilities and innovative approaches to address the issue of optimising patient surgical pathways; however, at present, we cannot give a firm justification for the use of low-pressure gynaecological laparoscopy. Reasons for this include the minimal reduction in pain scores between low, standard and high pneumoperitoneum pressures, leading to a mixture of statistically significant results, as well as a reduction in the visualisation of the surgical field and the small population sizes in the reviewed papers. Additional research is required to further explore the potential clinical benefits of gynaecological laparoscopy to ensure its effective ambulatory use within mainstream surgical operations.