Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative bowel stimulation on the development of postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (NCT025596350) including adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent elective loop ileostomy closure at 7 participating hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralized computer-generated sequence with block randomization to either preoperative bowel stimulation or no stimulation (control group). Bowel stimulation consisted of 10 outpatient sessions within the 3 weeks prior to ileostomy closure and was performed by trained Enterostomal Therapy nurses. The primary outcome was POI, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, on or after postoperative day 3, that either (a) required nasogastric tube insertion; or (b) was associated with two of the following: nausea/vomiting, abdominal distension, or the absence of flatus. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and November 2020, 101 patients were randomized, and 5 patients never underwent ileostomy closure; thus, 96 patients (47 stimulated vs. 49 control) were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. The incidence of POI was lower among patients randomized to stimulation (6.4% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.034; unadjusted RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.078-0.87). Stimulated patients also had earlier median time to first flatus (2.0 days (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 days (2.0-3.0), p = 0.025), were more likely to pass flatus on postoperative day 1 (46.8% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.022), and had a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (3.0 days (2.0-3.5) vs. 4.0 days (2.0-6.0), p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel stimulation via the efferent limb of the ileostomy reduced POI after elective loop ileostomy closure.

Surgeon unemployment: would practice sharing be a viable solution?

SUMMARY: Surgeon unemployment has become a crisis within Canadian surgery in recent years. Without dedicated governmental workforce planning, ensuring that new residency graduates can find employment will require new models of employment. Practice sharing, whereby a new graduate and a senior surgeon partner to divide their practices, allows the senior surgeon to wind down and the newer surgeon to ramp up. Importantly, this arrangement builds in formal mentoring, which is so important in the early years of starting a surgical practice. Practice sharing may be a solution for the workforce issues currently afflicting new surgical graduates across Canada.

A systematic review of the effects of resident duty hour restrictions in surgery: impact on resident wellness, training, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated 80-hour resident duty limits. In 2011 the ACGME mandated 16-hour duty maximums for PGY1 (post graduate year) residents. The stated goals were to improve patient safety, resident well-being, and education. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the impact of resident duty hours (RDH) on clinical and educational outcomes in surgery. METHODS: A systematic review (1980-2013) was executed on CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Embase, Medline, and Scopus. Quality of articles was assessed using the GRADE guidelines. Sixteen-hour shifts and night float systems were analyzed separately. Articles that examined mortality data were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of RDH on patient mortality. RESULTS: A total of 135 articles met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 42% (N = 57) were considered moderate-high quality. There was no overall improvement in patient outcomes as a result of RDH; however, some studies suggest increased complication rates in high-acuity patients. There was no improvement in education related to RDH restrictions, and performance on certification examinations has declined in some specialties. Survey studies revealed a perception of worsened education and patient safety. There were improvements in resident wellness after the 80-hour workweek, but there was little improvement or negative effects on wellness after 16-hour duty maximums were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Recent RDH changes are not consistently associated with improvements in resident well-being, and have negative impacts on patient outcomes and performance on certification examinations. Greater flexibility to accommodate resident training needs is required. Further erosion of training time should be considered with great caution.