• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 22.11.24

Search results


May 2022
Jordan Lachnish MD, Amit Zabatani MD, and Ran Thein MD

Background: The influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused countries worldwide to implement lockdowns. Elective surgeries were temporarily suspended, with surgeries being performed only for emergent/urgent medical conditions such as hip fractures where early surgical intervention has shown decreased rates of morbidity/mortality.

Objectives: To assess the indirect influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown on hip fracture patients, considering factors such as time to surgery, early postoperative complications, and ambulation status.

Methods: A comparative retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients presenting to our emergency department (ED) with hip fractures that were treated surgically (N=29) during a 1-month period during the government lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The treatments were compared to consecutive patients who presented with hip fractures and were treated surgically (N=44) during the same timeframe in the previous year (control). Comparisons were made using t-test, ANOVA test, Fisher's exact test, and chi-square test.

Results: The COVID-19 group was operated on sooner (20.34 vs. 34.87 hours), had fewer early postoperative complications (10.3% vs. 31.8%), had better ambulatory status at discharge, and experienced a shorter hospital stay (5.93 vs. 8.13 days) with more patients being discharged home (72.4% vs. 22.7%).

Conclusions: Patients presenting with hip fractures to our ED during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown indirectly benefited from this situation by undergoing earlier surgical treatment, thus experiencing fewer early postoperative complications, faster ambulation, and sooner discharge.

 

July 2020
Yaron Rudnicki MD, Ian White MD, Barak Benjamin MD, Lauren Lahav MD, Baruch Shpitz MD and Shmuel Avital MD

Background: Following an intestinal anastomotic leak, stoma creation may be the safest approach. However, this method may be challenging and cause significant morbidity. In selected cases, a T drain approach can be beneficial and a stoma can be avoided.

Objectives: To present one group's experience with a T drain approach for anastomotic leaks.

Methods: Data on patients who underwent emergent re-laparotomy following gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks were retrieved retrospectively and assessed with a new intra-operative leak severity score.

Results: Of 1684 gastrointestinal surgeries performed from 2014 to 2018, 41 (2.4%) cases of anastomotic leaks were taken for re-laparotomy. Cases included different sites and etiologies. Twelve patients were treated with a T-tube drain inserted through the leak site, 18 had a stoma taken out, 6 re-anastomosis, 4 were treated with an Endosponge, and one primary repair with a proximal ileostomy was conducted. T drain approach was successful in 11 of 12 patients (92%) with full recovery. One patient did not improve and underwent reoperation with resection and re-anastomosis. A severity score of anastomotic integrity is provided to help surgeons in decision making.

Conclusions: A T drain approach can be an optimal solution in selected cases following an intestinal anastomotic leak. When the leak is limited, the remaining anastomosis is intact and the abdominal environment allows it, a T drain can be used and a stoma can be avoided.

November 2019
Nir Horesh MD, Aviad Hoffman MD, Yaniv Zager MD, Mordechai Cordoba MD, Marat Haikin MD, Danny Rosin MD, Mordechai Gutman MD and Alexander Lebedeyev MD

Background: Evaluation of low rectal anastomosis is often recommended prior to ostomy closure, but the efficacy of such evaluations is uncertain.

Objectives: To assess whether routine colonic preoperative evaluation has an effect on postoperative ileostomy closure results.

Methods: We performed a retrospective study evaluating all patients who underwent ileostomy closure over 9 years. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical details, and surgical outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

Results: The study comprised 116 patients who underwent ileostomy closure, of them 65 were male (56%) with a mean age of 61 years (range 20–91). Overall, 98 patients (84.4%) underwent colonic preoperative evaluation prior to ileostomy closure. A contrast enema was performed on 61 patients (62.2%). Abnormal preoperative results were observed in 12 patients (12.2%). The overall complication rate was 35.3% (41 patients). No differences in postoperative outcome was observed in patient gender (P = 1), age (P = 0.96), body mass index (P = 0.24), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = 0.21), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score (P = 0.93). Among patients who had postoperative complications, we did not observe a difference between patients who underwent preoperative evaluation compared to those who did not (P = 0.42). No differences were observed among patients with preoperative findings interpreted as normal or abnormal (P = 1). The time difference between ileostomy creation and closure had no effect on the ileostomy closure outcome (P = 0.34).

Conclusions: Abnormal findings in preoperative colonic evaluation prior to ileostomy closure were not associated with worse postoperative outcome.

January 2014
Mona Boaz, Alexander Bermant, Tiberiu Ezri, Dror Lakstein, Yitzhak Berlovich, Iris Laniado RN and Zeev Feldbrin
Background: Surgical adverse events are errors that emerge during perioperative patient care. The World Health Organization recently published “Guidelines for Safe Surgery.”

Objectives: To estimate the effect of implementation of a safety checklist in an orthopedic surgical department.


Methods: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study to compare the incidence of complications prior to and following implementation of the Guidelines for Safe Surgery checklist. The medical records of all consecutive adult patients admitted to the orthopedics department at Wolfson Medical Center during the period 1 July 2008 to 1 January 2009 (control group) and from 1 January 2009 to 1 July 2009 (study group) were reviewed. The occurrences of all complications were compared between the two groups.

Results: The records of 760 patients (380 in each group) hospitalized during this 12 month period were analyzed. Postoperative fever occurred in 5.3% vs. 10.6% of patients with and without the checklist respectively (P = 0.008). Significantly more patients received only postoperative prophylactic antibiotics rather than both pre-and postoperative antibiotic treatment prior to implementation of the checklist (3.2% vs. 0%, P = 0.004). In addition, a statistically non-significant 34% decrease in the rate of surgical wound infection was also detected in the checklist group. In a logistic regression model of postoperative fever, the checklist emerged as a significant independent predictor of this outcome: odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.96, P = 0.037.

Conclusion: A significant reduction in postoperative fever after the implementation of the surgical safety checklist was found. It is possible that the improved usage of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics may explain the reduction in postoperative fever.

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel