IntroductionThe Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed the perioperative mortality rate (POMR) as one of the six key indicators of the strength of a country’s surgical system. Despite its widespread use in high-income settings, few studies have described procedure-specific POMR across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to estimate POMR across a wide range of surgical procedures in LMICs. We also describe how POMR is defined and reported in the LMIC literature to provide recommendations for future monitoring in resource-constrained settings.MethodsWe did a systematic review of studies from LMICs published from 2009 to 2014 reporting POMR for any surgical procedure. We extracted select variables in duplicate from each included study and pooled estimates of POMR by type of procedure using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilise variances.ResultsWe included 985 studies conducted across 83 LMICs, covering 191 types of surgical procedures performed on 1 020 869 patients. Pooled POMR ranged from less than 0.1% for appendectomy, cholecystectomy and caesarean delivery to 20%–27% for typhoid intestinal perforation, intracranial haemorrhage and operative head injury. We found no consistent associations between procedure-specific POMR and Human Development Index (HDI) or income-group apart from emergency peripartum hysterectomy POMR, which appeared higher in low-income countries. Inpatient mortality was the most commonly used definition, though only 46.2% of studies explicitly defined the time frame during which deaths accrued.ConclusionsEfforts to improve access to surgical care in LMICs should be accompanied by investment in improving the quality and safety of care. To improve the usefulness of POMR as a safety benchmark, standard reporting items should be included with any POMR estimate. Choosing a basket of procedures for which POMR is tracked may offer institutions and countries the standardisation required to meaningfully compare surgical outcomes across contexts and improve population health outcomes.

Objective:We review the existing research on environmentally sustainable surgical practices to enable SAO to advocate for improved environmental sustainability in operating rooms across the country.Summary of Background Data:Climate change refers to the impact of greenhouse gases emitted as a byproduct of human activities, trapped within our atmosphere and resulting in hotter and more variable climate patterns.1 As of 2013, the US healthcare industry was responsible for 9.8% of the country's emissions2; if it were itself a nation, US healthcare would rank 13th globally in emissions.3 As one of the most energy-intensive and wasteful areas of the hospital, ORs drive this trend. ORs are 3 to 6 times more energy intensive than clinical wards.4 Further, ORs and labor/delivery suites produce 50%–70% of waste across the hospital.5,6 Due to the adverse health impacts of climate change, the Lancet Climate Change Commission (2009) declared climate change “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century” and predicted it would exacerbate existing health disparities for minority groups, children and low socioeconomic patients.7Methods/Results:We provide a comprehensive narrative review of published efforts to improve environmental sustainability in the OR while simultaneously achieving cost-savings, and highlight resources for clinicians interested in pursuing this work.Conclusion:Climate change adversely impacts patient health, and disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable patients. SAO contribute to the problem through their resource-intensive work in the OR and are uniquely positioned to lead efforts to improve the environmental sustainability of the OR.