Background A video and medical data recorder in the operating theatre is possible, but concerns over privacy, data use and litigation have limited widespread implementation. The literature on legal considerations and challenges to overcome, and guidelines related to use of data recording in the surgical environment, are presented in this narrative review. Methods A review of PubMed and Embase databases and Cochrane Library was undertaken. International jurisprudence on the topic was searched. Practice recommendations and legal perspectives were acquired based on experience with implementation and use of a video and medical data recorder in the operating theatre. Results After removing duplicates, 116 citations were retrieved and abstracts screened; 31 articles were assessed for eligibility and 20 papers were finally included. According to the European General Data Protection Regulation and US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, researchers are required to make sure that personal data collected from patients and healthcare professionals are used fairly and lawfully, for limited and specifically stated purposes, in an adequate and relevant manner, kept safe and secure, and stored for no longer than is absolutely necessary. Data collected for the sole purpose of healthcare quality improvement are not required to be added to the patient's medical record. Conclusion Transparency on the use and purpose of recorded data should be ensured to both staff and patients. The recorded video data do not need to be used as evidence in court if patient medical records are well maintained. Clear legislation on data responsibility is needed to use the medical recorder optimally for quality improvement initiatives.

Background Surgical safety may be improved using a medical data recorder (MDR) for the purpose of postoperative team debriefing. It provides the team in the operating room (OR) with the opportunity to look back upon their joint performance objectively to discuss and learn from suboptimal situations or possible adverse events. The aim of this study was to investigate the satisfaction of the OR team using an MDR, the OR Black Box®, in the OR as a tool providing output for structured team debriefing. Methods In this longitudinal survey study, 35 gastro-intestinal laparoscopic operations were recorded using the OR Black Box® and the output was subsequently debriefed with the operating team. Prior to study, a privacy impact assessment was conducted to ensure alignment with applicable legal and regulatory requirements. A structured debrief model and an OR Back Box® performance report was developed. A standardized survey was used to measure participant’s satisfaction with the team debriefing, the debrief model used and the performance report. Factor analysis was performed to assess the questionnaire’s quality and identified contributing satisfaction factors. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify variables associated with participants’ opinions. Results In total, 81 team members of various disciplines in the OR participated, comprising 35 laparoscopic procedures. Mean satisfaction with the OR Black Box® performance report and team debriefing was high for all 3 identified independent satisfaction factors. Of all participants, 98% recommend using the OR Black Box® and the outcome report in team debriefing. Conclusion The use of an MDR in the OR for the purpose of team debriefing is considered to be both beneficial and important. Team debriefing using the OR Black Box® outcome report is highly recommended by 98% of team members participating.

ObjectivePain in chronic pancreatitis is subdivided in a continuous or intermittent pattern, each thought to represent a different entity, requiring specific treatment. Because evidence is missing, we studied pain patterns in a prospective longitudinal nationwide study.Design1131 patients with chronic pancreatitis (fulfilling M-ANNHEIM criteria) were included between 2011 and 2018 in 30 Dutch hospitals. Patients with continuous or intermittent pain were compared for demographics, pain characteristics, quality of life (Short-Form 36), imaging findings, disease duration and treatment. Alternation of pain pattern and associated variables were longitudinally assessed using a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model.ResultsAt inclusion, 589 patients (52%) had continuous pain, 231 patients (20%) had intermittent pain and 311 patients (28%) had no pain. Patients with continuous pain had more severe pain, used more opioids and neuropathic pain medication, and had a lower quality of life. There were no differences between pain patterns for morphological findings on imaging, disease duration and treatment. During a median follow-up of 47 months, 552 of 905 patients (61%) alternated at least once between pain patterns. All alternations were associated with the Visual Analogue Scale pain intensity score and surgery was only associated with the change from pain to no pain.ConclusionContinuous and intermittent pain patterns in chronic pancreatitis do not seem to be the result of distinctly different pathophysiological entities. The subjectively reported character of pain is not related to imaging findings or disease duration. Pain patterns often change over time and are merely a feature of how severity of pain is experienced.

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the characteristics and frequency of intraoperative safety threats and resilience supports using a human factors measurement tool. Background: Human factors analysis can provide insight into how system elements contribute to intraoperative adverse events. Empiric evidence on safety threats and resilience in surgical practice is lacking. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 24 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic general surgery at a single center in the Netherlands from May to November, 2017 was conducted. Video, audio, and patient physiologic data from all included procedures were obtained through a multichannel synchronized recording device. Trained analysts reviewed the recordings and coded safety threats and resilience supports. The codes were categorized into 1 of 6 categories (person, task, tools and technology, physical environment, organization, and external environment). Results: A median of 14 safety threats [interquartile range (IQR) 11-16] and 12 resilience supports (IQR 11-16) were identified per case. Most safety threat codes (median 9, IQR 7-12) and resilience support codes (median 10, IQR 7-12) were classified in the person category. The organization category contained a median of 2 (IQR 1-2) safety threat codes and 2 (IQR 2-3) resilience support codes per case. The tools and technology category contributed a small number of safety threats (median 1 per case, IQR 0-1), but rarely provided resilience support. Conclusions: Through a detailed human factors analysis of elective laparoscopic general surgery cases, this study provided a quantitative analysis of the existing safety threats and resilience supports in a modern endoscopic operating room.

ObjectivesTelephone consultations are frequently used in the outpatient setting in order to avoid unnecessary travel and to reduce hospital visit-related costs for patients. However, they are limited by the absence of non-verbal communication in contrast to video consultation. Little is known considering the possible advantages of using video consultation in comparison to telephone consultation according to both patients and healthcare providers.MethodsPatients with colorectal diseases were asked to choose between a telephone consultation or a video consultation for their next appointment at the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral centre. Willingness to use video consultation, value of non-verbal communication, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction and user friendliness of the video connection technology were measured using questionnaires.ResultsNone of the included patients ever had a video consultation before with a healthcare provider. Nonetheless, 22/50 preferred a video consultation over a telephone consultation. Patients who preferred a video consultation underlined the benefits of providing visual feedback to both patients and healthcare providers. Moreover, healthcare providers felt they were better able to assess the patients’ healthcare condition.ConclusionFor patients who value both verbal and non-verbal interaction and feel comfortable with the use of video consultation, video consultation is the preferred contact modality. Shared decision making should be used to choose the preferred interaction modality. For patients with low digital skills, support might be needed or video consultation may not be the preferred choice.

Background. Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era upcoming in medicine and, more recently, in the operating room (OR). Existing literature elaborates mainly on the future possibilities and expectations for AI in surgery. The aim of this study is to systematically provide an overview of the current actual AI applications used to support processes inside the OR. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore were searched using inclusion criteria for relevant articles up to August 25th, 2020. No study types were excluded beforehand. Articles describing current AI applications for surgical purposes inside the OR were reviewed. Results. Nine studies were included. An overview of the researched and described applications of AI in the OR is provided, including procedure duration prediction, gesture recognition, intraoperative cancer detection, intraoperative video analysis, workflow recognition, an endoscopic guidance system, knot-tying, and automatic registration and tracking of the bone in orthopedic surgery. These technologies are compared to their, often non-AI, baseline alternatives. Conclusions. Currently described applications of AI in the OR are limited to date. They may, however, have a promising future in improving surgical precision, reduce manpower, support intraoperative decision-making, and increase surgical safety. Nonetheless, the application and implementation of AI inside the OR still has several challenges to overcome. Clear regulatory, organizational, and clinical conditions are imperative for AI to redeem its promise. Future research on use of AI in the OR should therefore focus on clinical validation of AI applications, the legal and ethical considerations, and on evaluation of implementation trajectory.

Background: Video-assisted debriefing may be a powerful tool to improve surgical team performance. Nevertheless, a true operating team debriefing culture is lacking to date. This study aimed to find evidence on how to debrief the surgical team and develop a model suitable for debriefing using a video and medical data recorder (MDR) in the operating room (OR). Methods: A review of the PubMed and Embase databases and Cochrane Library was performed. The identified literature was studied and combined with a conceptual framework to develop a model for postoperative video-assisted team debriefing. Thirty-five surgical cases were recorded with an MDR and debriefed with the operating team using the proposed debrief model and a standardized video-assisted performance report. A questionnaire was used to assess the participants' satisfaction with this debrief model. Results: Debrief models and methods are extensively described in the current medical literature. An overview was provided. The OR team needs a structured debrief model, minimizing resource, effort, and motivational constraints. A structured six-step team debrief model suitable for video-assisted OR team debriefing was developed. The model was tested in 35 multidisciplinary MDR-assisted debriefing sessions and the debriefing sessions were overall rated with a mean of 7.8 (standard deviation 1.4, 10-point Likert scale) by participants. Conclusions: Debriefing surgical teams using a video and MDR in the OR requires a model on how to use such recordings optimally. To date, no such model existed. The proposed debrief model was tested using a multisource MDR and may be used to facilitate OR debriefing across various settings.

Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.