Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
4.
J Clin Med ; 11(11)2022 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1953590

ABSTRACT

Background: Significant concern emerged at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic regarding the safety and practicality of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). We aimed to review reported surgical practice and peer-reviewed published review recommendations and guidelines relating to RAS during the pandemic. Methods: A systematic review was performed in keeping with PRISMA guidelines. This study was registered on Open Science Framework. Databases were searched using the following search terms: 'robotic surgery', 'robotics', 'COVID-19', and 'SARS-CoV-2'. Firstly, articles describing any outcome from or reference to robotic surgery during the COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were considered for inclusion. Guidelines or review articles that outlined recommendations were included if published in a peer-reviewed journal and incorporating direct reference to RAS practice during the pandemic. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention) tool was used to assess the quality of surgical practice articles and guidelines and recommendation publications were assessed using the AGREE-II reporting tool. Publication trends, median time from submission to acceptance were reported along with clinical outcomes and practice recommendations. Results: Twenty-nine articles were included: 15 reporting RAS practice and 14 comprising peer-reviewed guidelines or review recommendations related to RAS during the pandemic, with multiple specialities (i.e., urology, colorectal, digestive surgery, and general minimally invasive surgery) covered. Included articles were published April 2020-December 2021, and the median interval from first submission to acceptance was 92 days. All surgical practice studies scored 'low' or 'moderate' risk of bias on the ROBINS-I assessment. All guidelines and recommendations scored 'moderately well' on the AGREE-II assessment; however, all underperformed in the domain of public and patient involvement. Overall, there were no increases in perioperative complication rates or mortalities in patients who underwent RAS compared to that expected in non-COVID practice. RAS was deemed safe, with recommendations for mitigation of risk of viral transmission. Conclusions: Continuation of RAS was feasible and safe during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where resources permitted. Post-pandemic reflections upon published robotic data and publication patterns allows us to better prepare for future events and to enhance urgent guideline design processes.

5.
World J Surg ; 46(9): 2021-2035, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1930392

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. METHODS: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. RESULTS: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. CONCLUSION: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide.


Subject(s)
Appendicitis , COVID-19 , Acute Disease , Appendectomy/methods , Appendicitis/diagnosis , Appendicitis/surgery , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
6.
World J Clin Cases ; 9(23): 6759-6767, 2021 Aug 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1359453

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is common in Western countries, with its prevalence increasing throughout the world. As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), elective surgery and in-patients' visits have been cancelled or postponed worldwide. AIM: To systematically explore the impact of the pandemic in the management of ACD. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, MedxRiv, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to 22 December 2020. Studies which reported on the management of patients with ACD during the COVID-19 pandemic were eligible. For cross sectional studies, outcomes of interest included the number of hospital admission for ACD, as well as key features of disease severity (complicated or not) across two time periods (pre- and during lockdown). RESULTS: A total of 69 papers were inspected, and 21 were eligible for inclusion. Ten papers were cross sectional studies from seven world countries; six were case reports; three were qualitative studies, and two review articles. A 56% overall decrease in admissions for ACD was observed during lockdown, peaking 67% in the largest series. A 4%-8% decrease in the rate of uncomplicated diverticulitis was also noted during the lockdown phase. An initial non-operative management was recommended for complicated diverticulitis, and encouraged to an out-of-hospital regimen. Despite initial concerns on the use of laparoscopy for Hinchey 3 and 4 patients to avoid aerosolized contamination, societal bodies have progressively mitigated their initial recommendations as actual risks are yet to be ascertained. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer patients presented and were diagnosed with ACD. Such decline may have likely affected the spectrum of uncomplicated disease. Established outpatient management and follow up for selected cases may unburden healthcare resources in time of crisis.

12.
Journal of Clinical Nursing ; 272(1):e24-e26, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-618128

ABSTRACT

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe nursing interventions in patient documentation in adult psychiatric outpatient setting, and to explore the potential for using the Nursing Interventions Classification in documentation in this setting. BACKGROUND: Documentation is an important part of nurses'work, and in the psychiatric outpatient care setting it can be time-consuming. Only very few research reports are available on nursing documentation in this care setting. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of secondary data consisting of nursing documentation for 79 patients in four outpatient units (years 2016 - 2017). The data consisted of 1150 free text entries describing a contact or an attempted contact with 79 patients, their family members or supporting networks and 17 nursing care summaries. Deductive and inductive content analysis was used. SRQR-guideline was used for reporting. RESULTS: We identified 71 different nursing interventions, 64 of which are described in the Nursing Interventions Classification. Surveillance and Care-Coordination were the most common interventions. The analysis revealed two perspectives which challenge the use of the classification: the problem of overlapping interventions and the difficulty of naming group-based interventions. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need to improve patient documentation in the adult psychiatric outpatient care setting, and standardized nursing terminologies such as the Nursing Interventions Classification could be a solution to this. However, the problems of overlapping interventions and naming group-based interventions, suggests that the classification needs to be further developed before it can fully support the systematic documentation of nursing interventions in the psychiatric outpatient care setting. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study describes possibilities of using a systematic nursing language to describe the interventions nurses use in the adult psychiatric outpatient setting. It also describes problems in the current free text based documentation.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL