ABSTRACT
Background Despite ongoing advances in the field of neonatology, the survival outcomes among critically ill preterm surgical neonates remain unfavorable. Intrahospital transport is one of the major risk factors associated with early mortality (within 30 days) in these newborns. To overcome this, the approach of performing bedside surgeries is being followed. We aim to assess the safety and feasibility of performing bedside neonatal surgeries by analyzing our archives. Methods The study focused on retrospective evaluation of all the newborns who have undergone surgical procedures in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at our center from August 2015 through February 2021. Newborns were operated within the NICU if they had very low birth weight or other risk factors making their transport to the operation room risky. The outcomes of surgeries were assessed in terms of postoperative complications, one-month survival, and overall survival. Results Thirteen children (M:F=9:4) underwent twenty-two surgical procedures. The median (range) gestational age and birth weight of our cohort were 30 (26-36) weeks and 1200 (500-2860) grams, respectively. One-month and overall survival rates in our cohort were 84% (11/13) and 77% (10/13), respectively. No major postoperative complications were observed. The requirement of multiple inotropes and/or high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) was the only factor having a significant association with unfavorable survival outcomes. Conclusions Bedside surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to surgeries within the operation room for at-risk newborns. In the present study, the requirement of multiple inotropes and/or HFOV was the only factor significantly associated with early mortality.
ABSTRACT
Background: Maintenance of the body posture and precise repetitive movements during minimally invasive surgeries predispose the surgeons to the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The present study was designed to estimate the ergonomic risk of MSDs in a single surgeon while performing vesicoscopic ureteric reimplantation. Materials and Methods: All children with primary vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) undergoing vesicoscopic ureteric reimplantation through the laparoscopic (Group 1) or robotic (Group 2) approaches from July 2015 to October 2019 were included. Data, including age at the time of surgery, gender, the severity of VUR (grade), number of ureters involved (unilateral or bilateral), and procedural details, were recorded. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) tool was used for the ergonomic risk assessment of each procedure. The REBA scores were graded as negligible (1), low (2-3), medium (4-7), high (8-10), and very high (11 or more). The risk index was considered as normal (1 or less) and high (>1). The ergonomic risk associated with both approaches was compared. Results: A total of 16 patients (Male:Female = 9:7) were included in the present study. Groups 1 and 2 had 11 and 5 patients, respectively. The average (range) age of the children belonging to Group 1 was significantly lesser than Group 2 (3 versus 7.5 years; P = .0004). The average duration of surgery was significantly longer in Groups 1 versus 2 (P = .03). The average REBA scores associated with the laparoscopic and robotic approaches were 13 and 5, respectively (P = .0006). The risk indices in both approaches were 3.25 and 1.25, respectively. Conclusion: In a limited cohort of patients, we observed an overall high risk of MSD to the surgeon while performing vesicoscopic ureteric reimplantation. The associated ergonomic risk was significantly less with the robotic (medium risk category) versus laparoscopic approach (very high risk category).
