Objective: Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery. Background: Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy. Results: One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach. Conclusion: Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.
Background: Over one million Francophone Canadians live in official language minority communities (OLMC) outside of Québec. Availability and accessibility of linguistically appropriate care to these OLMCs is lacking, resulting in poorer quality of care. To help address this health equity gap, the FrancoDoc program was created in 2015 to identify Francophone/Francophile medical students enrolled at medical faculties that use English as their primary language of instruction and equip them with skills to increase their medical French abilities. Little is known, however, about the affordances and limitations of this educational endeavour. Methods: Our qualitative instrumental single case study explored participants’ experiences with FrancoDoc, while also examining factors shaping the delivery of linguistically appropriate healthcare services to OLMCs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical students from across Canada and thematically analyzed these using a reflexive, inductive approach. Results: Four main themes were derived from 12 interviews: factors facilitating French language learning; barriers to French language learning; contextual factors shaping linguistically appropriate healthcare provision; and recommendations to improve healthcare education to better prepare learners to provide care to OLMCs. Conclusions: Medical student participants are highly motivated to engage in educational activities linked to FrancoDoc. Their efforts are nonetheless frequently impeded by barriers such as time constraints, irregular event programming, lack of regular clinical learning opportunities, and lukewarm support from faculties of medicine. If medical faculties are to realize their obligations to the OLMCs that they serve, recognition of language as a specific social determinant of health and more robust institutional supports for initiatives like FrancoDoc are paramount.
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness about the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). We aimed to study and compare PPE practices among Canadian endoscopists before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A 74-item questionnaire was emailed from June 2020 to September 2020 to practicing endoscopists in Canada. Survey questions collected basic demographics and differences between PPE practices pre- and post-COVID-19. PPE practices were categorized into four endoscopic procedure types including upper or lower endoscopy and diagnostic or interventional. Outcomes for specific procedures were reported as rates, with ranges shown when evaluating all procedure types together. Results A total of 77 respondents completed the survey with the majority of respondents aged 40 to 49 (44%) and identifying as Gastroenterologists (70%). Gender was evenly split (49% females versus 51% males). In the pre-pandemic era, the majority of endoscopists wore gowns (91 to 94%) and all endoscopists wore gloves (100%). However, the majority of endoscopists did not wear surgical masks (21 to 31%), face shields (13 to 34%), eye protection (13 to 21%), hair protection (11 to 13%), or N95 respirators (2 to 3%). In the post-pandemic era, more surgeons plan on wearing face shields (33 to 47%, P = 0.001 to 0.045), goggles (38.5 to 58.7%, P < 0.001), hair protection (33 to 36%, P = 0.011 to 0.024), and a trend suggests more surgeons will wear surgical masks (51 to 61%, P = 0.163 to 0.333). More endoscopists also plan on wearing N95 respirators during lower endoscopy (6 to 7%, P < 0.005). Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the attitudes of many endoscopists regarding future PPE use in routine endoscopy. Ongoing studies are needed to inform new post-pandemic PPE consensus guidelines.
Background Personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines serve to protect healthcare providers and patients from harmful biohazards. With the rise of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19), many institutions have mandated strictly enforced endoscopic PPE guidelines. We currently do not know how current practitioners perceive these mandates or how they will influence their practice long-term. Aims We aimed to survey the PPE practices among endoscopists across Canada and compare their perceived differences in practice between the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic eras. We hypothesize that the PPE guidelines during the pandemic will influence changes in PPE practices in endoscopy. Methods A 74-item questionnaire was emailed from June 2020 to September 2020 to all members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterologists and the Canadian Association of General Surgeons through newsletters. The survey was created by expert consensus and distributed using the REDCap software. Survey questions collected basic demographics and differences between PPE practices pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic eras. PPE practices were categorized into four endoscopic procedure types: diagnostic or therapeutic, and upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Individual outcomes were reported as rates, or ranges when evaluating for all procedure types. Results A total of 77 respondents completed the survey with the majority of respondents aged 40–49 (34 [44.2%]) and identifying as Gastroenterologists (54 [70.1%]). Gender was evenly split (38 females [49.4%] versus 39 males [50.6%]). In the pre-pandemic era, the majority of endoscopists wore gowns (91.0–93.9%) and all endoscopists wore gloves (100%). However, the majority of endoscopists did not wear surgical masks (20.9%-31.3%), N95 respirators (1.5%-3.2%), face shields (13.4%-33.9%), eye protection (13.4%-21.3%), or hair protection (11.1%-12.5%). In the post-pandemic era, endoscopists reported a plan to dramatically change their pre-pandemic practices and adopt current PPE mandates. All endoscopists reported a plan to fully gown and glove (100%) with the majority reporting they will continue wearing surgical masks (87.7%-90.5%), face shields (57.8%-75.0%), and hair protection (50.8%-53.8%). However, the majority reported a plan to decrease universal use of N95 respirators (6.5%-23.7%) or eye protection (36.5%-40.0%). Over half of the respondents reported changing their practice from no masking pre-pandemic to implementing routine masking. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the attitudes of many endoscopists regarding future PPE use in routine endoscopy. Ongoing studies comparing the rates of transmission of hospital-acquired infections in the setting of endoscopy are needed to develop a new post-pandemic PPE consensus. Funding Agencies None
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.