Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Major Procedures (major + procedure)
Selected AbstractsA systematic review of COX-2 inhibitors compared with traditional NSAIDs, or different COX-2 inhibitors for post-operative painACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 5 2004J. Rømsing Background:, We have reviewed the analgesic efficacy of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors compared with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), different COX-2 inhibitors, and placebo in post-operative pain. Methods:, Randomized controlled trials were evaluated. Outcome measures were pain scores and demand for supplementary analgesia 0,24 h after surgery. Results:, Thirty-three studies were included in which four COX-2 inhibitors, rofecoxib 50 mg, celecoxib 200 and 400 mg, parecoxib 20, 40 and 80 mg, and valdecoxib 10, 20, 40, 80 mg were evaluated. Ten of these studies included 18 comparisons of rofecoxib, celecoxib, or parecoxib with NSAIDs. Rofecoxib 50 mg and parecoxib 40 mg provided analgesic efficacy comparable to that of the NSAIDs in the comparisons, and with a longer duration of action after dental surgery but possibly not after major procedures. Celecoxib 200 mg and parecoxib 20 mg provided less effective pain relief. Four studies included five comparisons of rofecoxib 50 mg with celecoxib 200 and 400 mg. Rofecoxib 50 mg provided superior analgesic effect compared with celecoxib 200 mg. Data on celecoxib 400 mg were too sparse for firm conclusions. Thirty-three studies included 62 comparisons of the four COX-2 inhibitors with placebo and the COX-2 inhibitors significantly decreased post-operative pain. Conclusion:, Rofecoxib 50 mg and parecoxib 40 mg have an equipotent analgesic efficacy relative to traditional NSAIDs in post-operative pain after minor and major surgical procedures, and after dental surgery these COX-2 inhibitors have a longer duration of action. Besides, rofecoxib 50 mg provides superior analgesic effect compared with celecoxib 200 mg. [source] Classification for coding procedures in the intensive care unitACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 8 2002H. Flaatten Background: There is no commonly accepted coding system for non-operative procedures in general, including intensive care unit (ICU) procedures. In order to create a classification of codes for ICU procedures, a system developed at the University Hospital of Bergen was evaluated in four Nordic countries. Methods: Classification codes were constructed using seven main groups of related procedures that were given a letter from A to G. Within each group major procedures were given a number from 00 to 99, with the possibility of up to 10 subclassifications within each procedure. A simple questionnaire regarding the use of coding general ICU procedures and some specific procedures was sent to 171 ICUs in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway. They were also asked to give their comments on the new classification coding system, which was attached. Results: One hundred and fifty-four questionnaires were returned (response rate 90%). Some or most of the ICU procedures were registered in the ICUs (82.2%). However 38% did not use any coding system and 24% used a specific internal system. The new classification coding system was well received, and was given a mean value of 7.5 using a VAS scale from 0 to 10 (best). Most ICUs would consider using this system if introduced at a national level. Conclusion: Most Nordic ICUs do register some or most of the procedures performed. Such procedures are however, registered in very different ways, using several different systems, and are often home-made. The new classification system of ICU procedures was well rated. [source] Tales from the frontline: the colorectal battle against SARSCOLORECTAL DISEASE, Issue 2 2004I. M. J. Bradford Abstract Objective The recent worldwide epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Disease (SARS) caused over 800 deaths and had a major impact on the health services in affected communities. The impact of SARS on colorectal surgery, particularly service provision and training, is unknown. This paper reports these changes from a single colorectal unit at the centre of the outbreak. Patients and methods Hospital databases and electronic patient records covering the 4 months duration of the SARS epidemic and an equivalent period preceding SARS were compared. Data was collected for inpatient admissions, outpatient consultations, operative surgery, colonoscopy and waiting times for appointments or surgery. Results The SARS epidemic resulted in reductions of 52% for new outpatient attendances, 59% for review attendances, 51% for admissions, 32% for surgical procedures and 48% for colonoscopies. Major emergency procedures, cancer resections and complex major procedures were unaffected. Operative procedures by trainees reduced by 48% and procedures by specialists reduced by 21%. Patients awaiting early or urgent outpatient appointments rose by 200% with waiting times for colonoscopy increased by a median 3, 5 or 9 weeks for outpatient, inpatient or non-urgent cases, respectively. The waiting time for minor elective colorectal surgery was extended by 5 months. Conclusion SARS resulted in a major reduction in the colorectal surgical caseload. The consequences were evidenced by a detrimental effect on waiting times and colorectal training. However, serious pathology requiring emergency or complex surgery was still possible within these constraints. [source] Objective assessment of surgical competency , ENT traineesCLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, Issue 6 2007A.P. Bath Key points ,,The objective assessment of the progression of surgical competence throughout the career of a trainee surgeon is complicated. ,,An operative competence assessment form was introduced into the RITA process for ENT trainees in 2004 in the Eastern Deanery. ,,Analysis of the data has shown that there is a clear improvement in their surgical ability with ,minor' procedures being mastered much earlier in their career than ,major' procedures. ,,The value of such an assessment tool is that it has the potential to identify the trainee that has poor surgical ability early and it also provides evidence that senior trainees at the end of their training are surgically competent to meet the demands of a consultant post. [source] | ||||||||||