No 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.

Context: Sugammadex is known to reverse neuromuscular blockade (NMB) more rapidly and reliably than neostigmine. However, data remain limited in bariatric patients. In this review, we systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing NMB in morbidly obese (MO) patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Aims: Our primary objective was to determine the recovery time from drug administration to a train-of-four (TOF) ratio >0.9 from a moderate or deep NMB. Settings and Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis (SR and MA) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Items for SRs and MAs guidelines. Subjects and Methods: A systematic search was conducted within multiple databases for studies that compared sugammadex and neostigmine in MO patients. Statistical Analysis Used: We reported data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Seven studies with 386 participants met the inclusion criteria. Sugammadex significantly reduced the time of reversal of moderate NMB-to-TOF ratio >0.9 compared to neostigmine, with a mean time of 2.5 min (standard deviation [SD] 1.25) versus 18.2 min (SD 17.6), respectively (MD: −14.52; 95% CI: −20.08, −8.96; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 96%). The number of patients who had composite adverse events was significantly lower with sugammadex (21.2% of patients) compared to neostigmine (52.5% of patients) (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07–0.32; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: Sugammadex reverses NMB more rapidly with fewer adverse events than neostigmine in MO patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Background: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. Methods: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires.Results: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3–35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9–35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6–39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. Conclusions: Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.