ABSTRACT
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are collected pre- and post-operatively following cosmetic surgery. Clinicians assess their own outcomes following surgery, but without a validated clinician-reported outcome measure (CROM), there is no way to compare the clinical results among clinicians or compare these to PROM. Assessment of clinical outcomes is important to address the patients' expectations in the consenting process and to provide recommendations to patients preoperatively to improve post-operative appearance. To address the lack of validated CROM for cosmetic surgery, the Manchester Cosmetic Clinical Reported Outcome Questionnaire (MCCRO-Q) was developed. This study assessed the inter-rater reliability of assessors using the four-point scale pre- and post-operative MCCRO-Q questionnaires. Fifteen assessors reviewed photos from pre- and post-operative assessments in the UK between July 2016 and February 2020. Ninety-five patients were included in this validation study, with each patient assessed by a minimum of 3 assessors. MCCRO-Q showed consistency between reviewers, with all intra-class coefficient averages >0.5 for pre- and post-operative assessments. Moreover, 26% of preoperative assessments demonstrated perfect agreement, 56% had a maximum one-point difference and 18% had a two-point difference to the median score. Furthermore, 1% of postoperative assessments demonstrated perfect agreement, 36% had a one-point difference and 63% had a maximum point difference of 2 to the median score. The inter-rate agreement showed that MCCRO-Q is a reliable tool when used with 3 or more assessors to judge patient appearance clinically, preoperatively and post-operatively, concerning abdominoplasty.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Intraoperative bleeding during hepatectomy is primarily controlled through anaesthesiological interventions or surgical techniques such as Pringle maneuver (PM). Infrahepatic IVC clamping (IIVCC) is an alternative surgical technique to reduce central venous pressure and prevent retrograde hepatic venous bleeding. The aim of the meta-analysis was to compare IIVCC+PM with PM alone in terms of intraoperative outcomes and perioperative complications. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for comparative studies till 16.04.2024, resulting in 679 articles, of which eight studies met inclusion criteria. Data on patient demographics, surgical technique, and perioperative outcomes was assessed. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, one prospective, and five retrospective cohort studies with 358 patients in IIVCC+PM and 397 patients in PM alone group were included. IIVCC+PM resulted in significantly greater CVP reduction, less intraoperative blood loss (MD (95% CI) = - 233.03 (- 360.48 to - 105.58), P < 0.001), and less intraoperative blood transfusion (OR (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.25 to 0.57), P < 0.001) compared to PM alone. The two groups had comparable total operative time, transection time and total intraoperative fluid infusion. Patients undergoing IIVCC+PM had significantly shorter length of stay (MD (95% CI) = - 0.63 days (- 1.21 to - 0.05 days), P = 0.03) and overall complication rates (OR (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.43-0.92), P = 0.02) compared to PM alone group. CONCLUSION: The utilization of IIVCC along with PM during liver resection may be beneficial in reducing intraoperative bleeding and blood transfusion without adversely influencing operative times or perioperative outcomes compared to PM alone.
