ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dual-consultant operating (DCO) has been introduced in a multitude of surgical specialities. This retrospective cohort comparison study seeks to delineate any benefits DCO may confer on list utilisation, patient safety and training opportunities. METHODS: A retrospective cohort comparison of all free-flap breast reconstruction cases conducted at a single centre by five consultant plastic surgeons in the period May 2016-May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 281 patient records were used for analysis; 146 cases were dual consultants compared with 135 single consultants, representing 186 and 158 free flaps, respectively. Patient demographics were near identical in terms of patient age, BMI and ASA grade. Operating times were significantly reduced for both unilateral (mean reduction 59.49 min) and bilateral cases (mean reduction 38.14 min) with the presence of dual consultants. The mean length of stay for dual-consultant cases was on average 0.35 days less than for single consultant cases (p = 0.04). Dual-consultant case complications were less severe than those of single consultant cases (mean Clavien-Dindo severity 1.35 vs 0.96, p = 0.05). The rates of trainee one-to-one consultant training were increased in dual-consultant cases when preparing vessels (0.08 vs 0.35, p=<0.01) and performing anastomosis (0.63 vs 0.77, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: DCO for complex breast reconstruction confers significant benefits to operating time, list utility and patient safety whilst protecting training opportunities for trainees. Plastic surgery departments looking to redesign services in the post-SARS-CoV-19 era should consider its adoption into their enhanced recovery protocols.
Subject(s)
Free Tissue Flaps , Mammaplasty , Surgeons , Consultants , Humans , Mammaplasty/methods , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is the infectious disease caused by the recently discovered coronavirus, SARS-CoV2. This new virus and disease were unknown before the outbreak began in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The number of publications with regard to COVID-19-related information is exponentially increasing, but there are also some retracted papers appearing on PubMed, including those retracted from The Lancet Global Health and the New England Journal of Medicine. In a PubMed search for "COVID," there were 1595 articles by April 1, 2020. As of June 30, the number of articles has now reached 25,913. In this editorial, 4 specific areas of information are looked at but the principles apply to many other areas of medicine. The specifics looked at are PPE for tracheostomy, testing for COVID-19, pregnancy and COVID-19, and surgical expectations during redeployment. We must make no mistake that we are seeing a disease that modern medicine has never encountered before. This article is not aimed at belittling or dismissing any of the advice of the Royal Colleges' or PHE advice, but it demonstrates the tsunami of information and the ambiguity that surgeons are experiencing throughout the UK right now. This is unlikely to be the end of progression regarding healthcare planning and development for unencountered viruses9. In the next few months and beyond, there are likely to be adaptions and revisions of more documents advising on various aspects of healthcare with regard to COVID-19 management and for possible future viruses not yet seen by the modern world before.