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.
OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the role of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the decision to perform axillary surgery by comparing positron emission tomography/computed tomography findings with pathology consistency after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed for T1-4, cN1/2 breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy in our clinic between January 2016 and February 2021 were evaluated. Clinical and radiological responses, axillary surgery, and histopathological results after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Axillary involvement was not detected in positron emission tomography/computed tomography after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 140 (60.6%) of 231 node-positive patients. In total, 88 (62.8%) of these patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy, and axillary lymph node dissection was performed in 29 (33%) of these patients upon detection of 1 or 2 positive lymph nodes. The other 52 (37.1%) patients underwent direct axillary lymph node dissection, and no metastatic lymph nodes were detected in 33 (63.4%) patients. No metastatic lymph node was found pathologically in a total of 92 patients without involvement in positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and the negative predictive value was calculated as 65.7%. Axillary lymph node dissection was performed in 91 (39.4%) patients with axillary involvement in positron emission tomography/computed tomography after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Metastatic lymph nodes were found pathologically in 83 of these patients, and the positive predictive value was calculated as 91.2%. CONCLUSION: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography was found to be useful in the evaluation of clinical response, but it was not sufficient enough to predict a complete pathological response. When planning axillary surgery, axillary lymph node dissection should not be decided only with a positive positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Other radiological images should also be evaluated, and a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy should be the determinant of axillary lymph node dissection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.