The addition of lysostaphin dramatically improves survival, protects porcine biomesh from infection, and improves graft tensile shear strength.

BACKGROUND: Lysostaphin (LS), a naturally occurring Staphylococcal endopeptidase, has the ability to penetrate biofilm, and has been identified as a potential antimicrobial to prevent mesh infection. The goals of this study were to determine if LS adhered to porcine mesh (PM) can impact host survival, reduce the risk of long-term PM infection, and to analyze lysostaphin bound PM (LS-PM) mesh-fascial interface in an infected field. METHODS: Abdominal onlay PMs measuring 3×3 cm were implanted in select groups of rats (n=75). Group assignments were based on bacterial inoculum and presence of LS on mesh. Explantation occurred at 60 d. Bacterial growth and mesh-fascial interface tensile strength were analyzed. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Only one out of 30 rats with bacterial inoculum not treated with LS survived. All 30 LS treated rats survived and had normal appearing mesh, including 20 rats with a bacterial inoculum (10(6) and 10(8) CFU). Mean tensile strength for controls and LS and no inoculum samples was 3.47±0.86 N versus 5.0±1.0 N (P=0.008). LS groups inoculated with 10(6) and 10(8) CFU exhibited mean tensile strengths of 4.9±1.5 N and 6.7±1.6 N, respectively (P=0.019 and P<0.001 compared with controls). CONCLUSION: Rats inoculated with S. aureus and not treated with LS had a mortality of 97%. By comparison, LS treated animals completely cleared S. aureus when challenged with bacterial concentrations of 1×10(6) and 1×10(8) with maintenance of mesh integrity at 60 d. These findings strongly suggest the clinical use of LS-treated porcine mesh in contaminated fields may translate into more durable hernia repair.

Perceptions of student-observers in the operating room.

BACKGROUND: Student observation of surgical procedures is standard practice performed at the discretion of the attending surgeon and the participating medical facility. The goal of our study was to evaluate patient, physician, and operating room (OR) staff opinions concerning student observation of surgical procedures at different levels of academic training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, patients undergoing elective surgery were consented to participate in the survey. An anonymous online survey was sent to attending surgeons and OR staff. RESULTS: The majority of patients (97), physicians (91), and OR staff (71) believe that OR observational experience is important to medical student training. Patients (92%) and OR staff (97%) more so than physicians (72%) rated OR observational experience as important for nursing student education (P < 0.001). Comparatively, all groups believe this experience is less important for college and high school students (P < 0.01). When asked if patients should be informed preoperatively of student-observer presence during procedures, more patients and OR staff replied affirmatively compared with physicians (P < 0.001). Similarly, patients and OR staff more frequently believed that informed consent for OR student-observers was necessary (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: All groups acknowledged the educational value of student observational experience, although significant disparity was noted relative to academic level and the group responding. Additionally, opinions of the OR staff were more closely aligned with those of patients. Further assessment of the role of informed consent for student-observer OR presence and potential implications is needed.

Poor resident-attending intraoperative communication may compromise patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Prior research suggests that hierarchy in medicine may impact communication and patient safety. This study examined the factors that influence surgical trainees in expressing their opinion in the operating room and the consequences this might have on patient safety. METHODS: An anonymous survey of general surgery, gynecology, and orthopedic surgery residents and attendings was conducted at a teaching institution in 2010. Separate surveys were used for attendings and for trainees consisting of 26 and 27 questions, respectively, with 17 questions in common. The surveys assessed whether the surgical hierarchy interfered with the residents voicing concerns about patient safety. Survey data was compiled, and χ2, Fisher exact tests, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used depending on the normality of the data. RESULTS: Thirty-eight trainees and 23 attendings participated in the survey; 74%-78% of trainees and attendings recalled an incident where the trainee spoke up and prevented an adverse event. While all attendings reported that they encourage residents to question their intraoperative decision making, only 55% of residents agreed (P<0.01). Residents indicated that they were more likely to voice their opinion with some attendings than with others based on their personality. Both groups agreed that the hierarchical structure of general surgical residency is necessary. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that resident attending intraoperative communication can prevent adverse patient events. Trainees often feel impaired in voicing their concerns to their attendings. Strategies that improve resident attending communication intraoperatively are needed as they are likely to enhance patient safety.