BackgroundSurgical site infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections among surgical patients. The administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical site infections . The optimal timing of this procedure is still a matter of debate. While most studies suggest that it should be given as close to the incision time as possible, others conclude that this may be too late for optimal prevention of surgical site infections. A large observational study suggests that surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered 74 to 30 minutes before surgery. The aim of this article is to report the design and protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the optimal timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis.Methods/DesignIn this bi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland, we plan to include 5,000 patients undergoing general, oncologic, vascular and orthopedic trauma procedures. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: one receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (75 to 30 minutes before incision) and the other receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room (less than 30 minutes before incision). We expect a significantly lower rate of surgical site infections with surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis administered more than 30 minutes before the scheduled incision. The primary outcome is the occurrence of surgical site infections during a 30-day follow-up period (one year with an implant in place). When assuming a 5% surgical site infection risk with administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room, the planned sample size has an 80% power to detect a relative risk reduction for surgical site infections of 33% when administering surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (with a two-sided type I error of 5%). We expect the study to be completed within three years.DiscussionThe results of this randomized controlled trial will have an important impact on current international guidelines for infection control strategies in the hospital. Moreover, the results of this randomized controlled trial are of significant interest for patient safety and healthcare economics.Trial registrationThis trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01790529.

Background Vision is an essential element of laparoscopic surgery that defines the outcome of an operation in regards to time, mistakes and precision. A 3-dimensional (3D) perspective may improve vision during an operation. Therefore, this study was designed to compare 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) perspectives using a pelvitrainer model. Methods Fifty candidates were divided into 3 categories based on different experience levels. The candidates were randomised into two groups, with each group performing the same 4 standardised tasks. Group A approached the tasks first with 3D high definition and in a second turn with 2D high definition. Group B carried out the tasks with the systems in reverse order. Task completion time and the number of mistakes made for each task were recorded. After completing the tasks, participants answered questions concerning the two systems. Results Group A was, on average, 20% faster at all four tasks and made approximately 18% fewer mistakes in two of the tasks in comparison to group B. The experts significantly benefited from the 3D system in terms of accuracy compared to non-experts and students. The students demonstrated a significantly greater benefit from the 3D system when performing non-linear, continuous movements. Loss of concentration occurred at the same rate for subjects using the 2D and 3D systems. Nausea and dizziness were reported only when working with the 3D system. 91% found the 3D system advantageous for accomplishing the tasks. Conclusions Irrespective of experience level, 3D laparoscopy shows advantages in saving time, increasing accuracy and reducing mistakes. These benefits were also accompanied by subjective advantages that were noted by the participants. However, the more complex the task, the less significant the benefit of the 3D system and some people feel handicapped by the eyewear.

This cross-sectional study quantifies disagreement in assessment of work ability of disability claimants referred to a multidisciplinary assessment center. The high level of disagreement calls for a careful evaluation of the disability assessment process in an effort to reduce the disagreement between expert teams, treating physicians, and claimants.

No abstract

Laparoscopic surgery provides well-known benefits, but it has technological limitations. Depth perception is particularly crucial, with three-dimensional (3D) imaging being superior to two-dimensional (2D) HD imaging. However, with the introduction of 4K resolution monitors, 2D rendering is capable of providing higher-quality visuals. Therefore, this study aimed to compare 3D HD and 2D 4K imaging using a pelvitrainer model. Eight experts and 32 medical students were performing the same four standardized tasks using 2D 4K and 3D HD imaging systems. Task completion time and the number of errors made were recorded. The Wilcoxon test and mixed-effects models were used to analyze the results. Students were significantly faster in all four tasks when using the 3D HD perspective. The median difference ranged from 18 s in task 3 (P < 0.003) up to 177.5 s in task 4 (P < 0.001). With the exception of task 4, students demonstrated significantly fewer errors in all tasks involving 3D HD imaging. The experts’ results confirmed these findings, as they were also faster in all four tasks using 3D HD, which was significant for task 1 (P < 0.001) and task 4 (P < 0.006). The expert group also achieved better movement accuracy using the 3D HD system, with fewer mistakes made in all four tasks, which was significant in task 4 (P < 0.001). Participants in both groups achieved better results with the 3D HD imaging system than with the 2D 4K system. The 3D HD image system should be used when available. Trial registration: this trial is registered at research registry under the identifier researchregistry6852.