To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

BACKGROUND: Knee disarticulations (KD) are most commonly employed following trauma or tumor resection but represent less than 2% of all lower extremity amputations performed in the United States annually. KDs provide enhanced proprioception, a long lever arm, preservation of adductor muscle insertion, decreased metabolic cost of ambulation, and an end weight-bearing stump. The role for KDs in the setting of arterial insufficiency or overwhelming infection is less clear. The purpose of this study is to describe technique modifications and report surgical outcomes following KDs at a high-volume Limb Salvage Center. METHODS: A retrospective study of medical records for all patients who underwent a through-knee amputation performed by the senior author (C.E.A.) between 2004 and 2012 was completed. Medical records were reviewed to collect demographic, operative, and postoperative information for each of the patients identified. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2012, 46 through-knee amputations for 41 patients were performed. The mean patient age was 68 and indications for surgery included infection (56%), arterial thrombosis (35%), and trauma (9%). Postoperative complications included superficial cellulitis (13%), soft tissue infection (4%), and flap ischemia (4%) necessitating one case of surgical debridement (4%) and four trans-femoral amputations (9%). 9 (22%) patients went on to ambulate. Postoperative ambulation was greatest in the traumatic cohort and for patients less than 50 years of age, P<0.05. Alternatively, diabetes mellitus and infection reduced the likelihood of postoperative ambulation, P<0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Knee disarticulations are a safe and effective alternative to other lower extremity amputations when clinically feasible. For patient unlikely to ambulate, a through-knee amputation maximizes ease of transfers, promotes mobility by providing a counterbalance, and eliminates the potential for knee flexion contracture with subsequent skin breakdown.
Amputation* ; Arm ; Cellulitis ; Cohort Studies ; Contracture ; Debridement ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Disarticulation ; Extremities ; Humans ; Ischemia ; Knee* ; Limb Salvage ; Lower Extremity ; Medical Records ; Postoperative Complications ; Proprioception ; Retrospective Studies ; Skin ; Soft Tissue Infections ; Thrombosis ; United States ; Walking ; Weight-Bearing

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era. Methods: All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance. Results: A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching. Conclusion MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.

The urgency for climate action is recognised by international government and healthcare organisations, including the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organisation (WHO). Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution negatively impact all life on earth. All populations are impacted but not equally; the most vulnerable are at highest risk, an inequity further exacerbated by differences in access to healthcare globally. The delivery of healthcare exacerbates the planetary health crisis through greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to combustion of fossil fuels for medical equipment production and operation, creation of medical and non-medical waste, and contamination of water supplies. As representatives of radiology societies from across the globe who work closely with industry, and both governmental and non-governmental leaders in multiple capacities, we advocate together for urgent, impactful, and measurable changes to the way we deliver care by further engaging our members, policymakers, industry partners, and our patients. Simultaneous challenges including global health disparities, resource allocation, and access to care must inform these efforts. Climate literacy should be increasingly added to radiology training programmes. More research is required to understand and measure the environmental impact of radiological services and inform mitigation, adaptation and monitoring efforts. Deeper collaboration with industry partners is necessary to support innovations in the supply chain, energy utilization, and circular economy. Many solutions have been proposed and are already available, but we must understand and address barriers to implementation of current and future sustainable innovations.

The urgency for climate action is recognised by international government and healthcare organisations, including the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organisation (WHO). Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution negatively impact all life on earth. All populations are impacted but not equally; the most vulnerable are at highest risk, an inequity further exacerbated by differences in access to healthcare globally. The delivery of healthcare exacerbates the planetary health crisis through greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to combustion of fossil fuels for medical equipment production and operation, creation of medical and non-medical waste, and contamination of water supplies. As representatives of radiology societies from across the globe who work closely with industry, and both governmental and non-governmental leaders in multiple capacities, we advocate together for urgent, impactful, and measurable changes to the way we deliver care by further engaging our members, policymakers, industry partners, and our patients. Simultaneous challenges including global health disparities, resource allocation, and access to care must inform these efforts. Climate literacy should be increasingly added to radiology training programmes. More research is required to understand and measure the environmental impact of radiological services and inform mitigation, adaptation and monitoring efforts. Deeper collaboration with industry partners is necessary to support innovations in the supply chain, energy utilization, and circular economy. Many solutions have been proposed and are already available, but we must understand and address barriers to implementation of current and future sustainable innovations.

The urgency for climate action is recognised by international government and healthcare organisations, including the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organisation (WHO). Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution negatively impact all life on earth. All populations are impacted but not equally; the most vulnerable are at highest risk, an inequity further exacerbated by differences in access to healthcare globally. The delivery of healthcare exacerbates the planetary health crisis through greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to combustion of fossil fuels for medical equipment production and operation, creation of medical and non-medical waste, and contamination of water supplies. As representatives of radiology societies from across the globe who work closely with industry, and both governmental and non-governmental leaders in multiple capacities, we advocate together for urgent, impactful, and measurable changes to the way we deliver care by further engaging our members, policymakers, industry partners, and our patients. Simultaneous challenges including global health disparities, resource allocation, and access to care must inform these efforts. Climate literacy should be increasingly added to radiology training programmes. More research is required to understand and measure the environmental impact of radiological services and inform mitigation, adaptation and monitoring efforts. Deeper collaboration with industry partners is necessary to support innovations in the supply chain, energy utilization, and circular economy. Many solutions have been proposed and are already available, but we must understand and address barriers to implementation of current and future sustainable innovations.

The urgency for climate action is recognised by international government and healthcare organisations, including the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organisation (WHO). Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution negatively impact all life on earth. All populations are impacted but not equally; the most vulnerable are at highest risk, an inequity further exacerbated by differences in access to healthcare globally. The delivery of healthcare exacerbates the planetary health crisis through greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to combustion of fossil fuels for medical equipment production and operation, creation of medical and non-medical waste, and contamination of water supplies. As representatives of radiology societies from across the globe who work closely with industry, and both governmental and non-governmental leaders in multiple capacities, we advocate together for urgent, impactful, and measurable changes to the way we deliver care by further engaging our members, policymakers, industry partners, and our patients. Simultaneous challenges including global health disparities, resource allocation, and access to care must inform these efforts. Climate literacy should be increasingly added to radiology training programmes. More research is required to understand and measure the environmental impact of radiological services and inform mitigation, adaptation and monitoring efforts. Deeper collaboration with industry partners is necessary to support innovations in the supply chain, energy utilization, and circular economy. Many solutions have been proposed and are already available, but we must understand and address barriers to implementation of current and future sustainable innovations.