Background A dedicated operating team is defined as a surgical team consisting of the same group of people working together over time, optimally attuned in both technical and/or communicative aspects. This can be achieved through technical and/or communicative training in a team setting. A dedicated surgical team may contribute to the optimization of healthcare quality and patient safety within the perioperative period. Method A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effects of a dedicated surgical team on clinical and performance outcomes. MEDLINE and Embase were searched on 23 June 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, complications and readmissions. Secondary outcomes were costs and performance measures. Results Fourteen studies were included (RCTs n = 1; NRSs n = 13). Implementation of dedicated operating teams was associated with improvements in mortality, turnover time, teamwork, communication and costs. No significant differences were observed in readmission rates and length of hospital stay. Results regarding duration, glitch counts and complications of surgery were inconclusive. Limitations include study conduct and heterogeneity between studies. Conclusions The institution of surgical teams who followed communicative and/or technical training appeared to have beneficial effects on several clinical outcome measures. Dedicated teams provide a feasible way of improving healthcare quality and patient safety. A dose–response effect of team training was reported, but also a relapse rate, suggesting that repetitive training is of major concern to high-quality patient care. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, due to limited level of evidence in current literature. Prospero registration number CRD42020145288

Background: Endovascular access is usually achieved through the common femoral artery due to its large size and accessibility. Access through the upper extremity can however be necessary due to anatomic reasons, obesity, or peripheral arterial disease. The 2 main methods of access are surgical cutdown and percutaneous puncture. In this single-centre retrospective cohort study we compared complication risks for both surgical cutdown and percutaneous puncture of an upper arm approach. Materials and Methods: Data was obtained from patients receiving endovascular access through the brachial or axillar y arter y between 2005 and 2018. A total of 109 patients were included. Patient demographics including age, sex, medical history, smoking status, and actual medication were registered, as well as postoperative complications including hematoma, thrombosis, dissection, infection, pseudoaneurysm, nerve injury, reoperation, and readmission. Results: Access was achieved through surgical cutdown in 53% ( n = 58) and through percutaneous puncture in 47% ( n = 51) of patients. Fifty-eight percent ( n = 63) received access via the brachial artery (BA) and 42% ( n = 46) via the axillary artery. Complication rate was 25.0% (3 of 12) for surgical cutdown via the BA, 29.4% (15 of 51) for percutaneous puncture via the BA, and 10.9% (5 of 46) for surgical cutdown via the axillary artery. Major complication rate was 8.3% (1 of 12) for surgical cutdown via the BA, 13.7% (7 of 51) for percutaneous puncture via the BA, and 4.3% (2 of 46) for surgical cutdown via the axillary artery. There was no association between baseline patient characteristics and complication rate. Conclusions: In this nonrandomized retrospective study, surgical cutdown via the axillary artery was the safest option with fewest complications, but selection of patients may have blurred the results. Surgical cutdown and percutaneous puncture seem equally safe in terms of complication rate in the BA.