Characterisation of trocar associated gas leaks during laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: During laparoscopy, the abdominal cavity is insufflated with carbon dioxide (CO2) that could become contaminated with viruses and surgical smoke. Medical staff is potentially exposed when this gas leaks into the operating room through the instruments and past trocar valves. No detailed studies currently exist that have quantified these leakage pathways. Therefore, the goal of this study was to quantify the gas leakages through trocars and instruments, during minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: A model of the surgical environment was created, consisting of a rigid container with an interface for airtight clamping of laparoscopic equipment such as trocars and surgical instruments. The model was insufflated to 15 mm Hg using a pressure generator and a pneumotachograph measured the equipment gas leak. A protocol of several use cases was designed to simulate the motions and forces the surgeon exerts on the trocar during surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-three individual trocars and twenty-six laparoscopic instruments were measured for leakage under the different conditions of the protocol. Trocar leakages varied between 0 L/min and more than 30 L/min, the instruments revealed a range of leakages between 0 L/min and 5.5 L/min. The results showed that leakage performance varied widely between trocars and instruments and that the performance and location of the valves influenced trocar leakage. CONCLUSIONS: We propose trocar redesigns to overcome specific causes of gas leaks. Moreover, an international testing standard for CO2 leakage for all new trocars and instruments is needed so surgical teams can avoid this potential health hazard when selecting new equipment.

The EAES intellectual property awareness survey.

INTRODUCTION: The protection of intellectual property (IP) is one of the fundamental elements in the process of medical device development. The significance of IP, however, is not well understood among clinicians and researchers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current status of IP awareness and IP-related behaviors among EAES members. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted via questionnaires sent to EAES members. Data collected included participant demographics, level of understanding the need, new ideas and solutions, basic IP knowledge, e.g., employees' inventions and public disclosure, behaviors before and after idea disclosures. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine completed forms were obtained through an email campaign conducted twice in 2019 (response rate = 4.8%). There was a dominancy in male, formally-trained gastrointestinal surgeons, working at teaching hospitals in European countries. Of the respondents, 71% demonstrated a high level of understanding the needs (frustration with current medical devices), with 66% developing specific solutions by themselves. Active discussion with others was done by 53%. Twenty-one percent of respondents presented their ideas at medical congresses, and 12% published in scientific journals. Only 20% took specific precautions or appropriate actions to protect their IPs before these disclosures. CONCLUSIONS: The current level of awareness of IP and IP-related issues is relatively low among EAES members. A structured IP training program to gain basic IP knowledge and skill should be considered a necessity for clinicians. These skills would serve to prevent the loss of legitimate IP rights and avoid failure in the clinical implementation of innovative devices for the benefit of patients.

The rapid development of AmboVent: a simple yet sustainable ventilation solution for use in a pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged at the end of 2019, generating a rapidly evolving pandemic, raising serious global health implications. Among them was the fear of a mechanical ventilator shortage due to COVID-19's high contagion rate and pathophysiology. Fears of a ventilator shortage unleashed a wave of innovations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This manuscript describes the AmboVent, a ventilator, rapidly developed with a sense of urgency, by a group of Israeli volunteers. RESULTS: Using a decentralized approach, we worked extensively and managed within ten days to create a working ventilator. It utilizes a 64-year-old technological concept, the bag valve mask (BVM), sometimes known by the proprietary name Ambu bag, which we transformed into an automatic, controlled, and feature-rich ventilator by endowing it with contemporary computing technology. CONCLUSIONS: Applying a functional rather than a commercial-oriented approach can result in the ad hoc development of lifesaving solutions during a rapidly spreading pandemic.

Is it possible to continue academic teaching in surgery during the COVID pandemic era?

In the era of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we critically appraised the literature by means of a systematic review on surgical education and propose an educational curriculum with the aid of available technologies. We performed a literature search on 10 May 2020 of Medline/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and major journals with specific COVID-19 sections. Articles eligible for inclusion contained the topic of education in surgery in the context of COVID-19. Specific questions we aimed to answer were: Is there any difference in surgical education from pre-COVID-19 to now? How does technology assist us in teaching? Can we better harness technology to augment resident training? Two-hundred and twenty-six articles were identified, 21 relevant for our aim: 14 case studies, three survey analyses, three reviews and one commentary. The collapse of the traditional educational system due to social distancing caused a fragmentation of knowledge, a reduced acquisition of skills and a decreased employment of surgical trainees. These problems can be partially overcome by using new technologies and arranging 2-weeks rotation shifts, alternating clinical activities with learning. While medical care will remain largely based on the interaction with patients, students' adaptability to innovation will be a characteristic of post-COVID classes.

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. CONCLUSION: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.

COVID-19: Pandemic surgery guidance

Based on high quality surgery and scientific data, scientists and surgeons are committed to protecting patients as well as healthcare staff and hereby provide this Guidance to address the special issues circumstances related to the exponential spread of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during this pandemic. As a basis, the authors used the British Intercollegiate General Surgery Guidance as well as recommendations from the USA, Asia, and Italy. The aim is to take responsibility and to provide guidance for surgery during the COVID-19 crisis in a simplified way addressing the practice of surgery, healthcare staff and patient safety and care. It is the responsibility of scientists and the surgical team to specify what is needed for the protection of patients and the affiliated healthcare team. During crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the responsibility and duty to provide the necessary resources such as filters, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) consisting of gloves, fluid resistant (Type IIR) surgical face masks (FRSM), filtering face pieces, class 3 (FFP3 masks), face shields and gowns (plastic ponchos), is typically left up to the hospital administration and government. Various scientists and clinicians from disparate specialties provided a Pandemic Surgery Guidance for surgical procedures by distinct surgical disciplines such as numerous cancer surgery disciplines, cardiothoracic surgery, ENT, eye, dermatology, emergency, endocrine surgery, general surgery, gynecology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, pediatric surgery, reconstructive and plastic surgery, surgical critical care, transplantation surgery, trauma surgery and urology, performing different surgeries, as well as laparoscopy, thoracoscopy and endoscopy. Any suggestions and corrections from colleagues will be very welcome as we are all involved and locked in a rapidly evolving process on increasing COVID-19 knowledge.

The risk of COVID-19 transmission by laparoscopic smoke may be lower than for laparotomy: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the Pubmed, Embase and Google scholar search engines, as well as manual search of the major journals with specific COVID-19 sections for ahead-of-print publications. RESULTS: Of 1098 identified articles, we critically appraised 50. Surgical smoke created by electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices has the same composition both in laparoscopy and laparotomy. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in surgical smoke and there is currently no data to support its virulence if ever it could be transmitted through surgical smoke/aerosol. CONCLUSION: If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety.