Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Outcomes and mortality after hip fractures treated in Kazakhstan

Introduction: Patients with hip fractures are usually treated operatively in Western Europe. However, in Mid-Asia different indications are used to decide whether this patient is suitable for operative treatment and those are related to specific traditions and rules in hospital. Thus, traditions and surgeon/patient fears seem to affect treatment choices in hip fractures and subsequent outcomes. The aim of our study was to investigate patients with hip fractures and compare outcome at 1-year follow-up in the operated and nonoperated patient groups. Methods: All patients over 50 years old who sustained a hip fracture, between January 2014 and December 2014, were included. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, using questionnaires from National Swedish Hip Fracture Register and quality of life (Euroqol EQ-5D). Results: Out of 398 included patients, 299 were operated on and 99 were not. 344 patients remained for our analysis before the end of 1-year follow-up. 51 patients (65%) deceased in the nonoperated group as compared to 55 (21%) in the operated group, p&lt;0.001. Out of 27 patients in the nonoperated group hip function was evaluated at 1-year follow-up, 11 (41%) were walking independently or using 1 stick, as compared to 192 (91%) in the operated group. Conclusions: We conclude that nonoperative treatment of hip fracture patients is associated with higher mortality and worse functional outcome as compared to those who were treated operatively. We therefore advocate operative treatment of the hip fracture in the vast majority of cases. </jats:sec