The World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist was developed to improve communication in perioperative care, reduce mortality and complications of patients, and ensure the consistent use of procedures for safe surgery. Despite the increased awareness of the checklist, the implementation compliance is reported as low and the degree of completeness varies. This study aimed to explore the possible supportive factors for the effective implementation and to identify potential awareness and barriers to its implementation in gynecological and obstetrical operation.A survey using a cross-sectional design that included surgeons, anesthetists, and operating room nurses was performed. We used an online link to distribute the survey to all eligible surgical team members in our hospital. The survey contained various aspects of perceptions on the Surgical Safety Checklist and an open-ended question that allowed respondents to offer their opinions on the topic.The overall self-reported awareness of the checklist within each professional group was high. The awareness of surgeons was lower than that of operating room nurses, particularly in the Time-out section. Most participants believed that operating room nurses ranked the highest compliance to the protocols, while surgeons stayed the lowest. Active leadership with experienced operating room nurses, good training for surgical team members, and simplification of the checklist would be the positive factors for the effective implementation.Although there is a high acceptance and adequate self-reported awareness of the Surgical Safety Checklist, it is not always possible to implement it successfully. Our findings suggest that with experienced and effective leadership, barriers to implementation can be overcome. With positive perception and commitment, the Surgical Safety Checklist is easy to implement and it can make a profound improvement on the safety of surgical care. Moreover, a strategy of repetitive training and assessment on the part of the involved health care professionals may be necessary to further improve patients' safety during surgery.

No abstract

Background Management of the airway and ventilation in neonates with a tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) remains a significant challenge. The routine method of intubation involves placement of the tracheal tube tip beyond the fistula opening followed by isolation of the fistula from ventilation using the inflated cuff. When the fistula opening is close to the carina or below the level of the carina, the traditional technique is not suitable for adequate ventilation. Moreover, this method fails to prevent gastric insufflation. Case presentation We herein report a series of 10 newborns with TEFs (1,090–3,080 g) who underwent bronchoscopic insertion of a 5-Fr balloon-tipped bronchial blocker (BTBB) for temporary occlusion of the fistula. In seven newborns, placement of the BTBB was easily and quickly achieved with no incorrect placements. In addition, we successfully utilized the inner hollow cavity of the BTBB for gastric decompression in six neonates with severe gastric distension. However, three failed placements occurred in premature infants (<2,000 g) because the narrow cricoid cavity was too small to accommodate a 2.8-mm fiberoptic bronchoscope and a BTBB. The procedure was well tolerated by all infants, and no significant adverse events occurred. Conclusions Our findings illustrate that BTBBs can provide durable blockage of the fistula opening and should be considered as a treatment modality for infants with large carinal TEFs. Moreover, BTBB placement is neither arduous nor time-consuming. The hollow center, small round balloon, and 30-degree angled tip of the BTBB make this device feasible for clinical application, especially for neonates with severe gastrointestinal distension.

Aims To expand the evidence base for the clinical use of metformin, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of metformin versus insulin with respect to short-term neonatal outcomes. Methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) was performed. Two reviewers extracted the data and calculated pooled estimates by use of a random-effects model. In total, 24 studies involving 4355 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included in the quantitative analyses. Results Unlike insulin, metformin lowered neonatal birth weights (mean difference − 122.76 g; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 178.31, − 67.21; p < 0.0001), the risk of macrosomia (risk ratio [RR] 0.68; 95% CI 0.54, 0.86; p = 0.001), the incidence of neonatal intensive care unit admission (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61, 0.88; p = 0.0009), and the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52, 0.81; p = 0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on the maximum daily oral dose of metformin indicated that metformin-induced neonatal birth weight loss was independent of the oral dose. Conclusions Our meta-analysis provides further evidence that metformin is a safe oral antihyperglycemic drug and has some benefits over insulin when used for the treatment of gestational diabetes, without an increased risk of short-term neonatal adverse outcomes. Metformin may be particularly useful in women with gestational diabetes at high risk for neonatal hypoglycemia, women who want to limit maternal and fetal weight gain, and women with an inability to afford or use insulin safely.