Background Proper documentation is an essential part of patient safety and quality of care in the surgical field. Surgical procedures are traditionally documented in narrative operative reports which are subjective by nature and often lack essential information. This systematic review will analyze the added value of the newly emerged synoptic reporting technique in the surgical setting. Methods A systematic review was conducted to compare the completeness and the user-friendliness of the synoptic operative report to the narrative operative report. A literature search was performed in EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for studies published up to April 6, 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized for the risk of bias assessment of the included articles. PROSPERO registration number was: CRD42018093770. Results Overall and subsection completion of the operative report was higher in the synoptic operative report. The time until completion of the operative report and the data extraction time were shorter in the synoptic report. One exception was the specific details section concerning the operative procedure, as this was generally reported more frequently in the narrative report. The use of mandatory fields in the synoptic report resulted in more completely reported operative outcomes with completion percentages close to 100%. Conclusions The synoptic operative report generally demonstrated a higher completion rate and a much lower time until completion compared to the traditional narrative operative report. A hybrid approach to the synoptic operative report will potentially yield better completion rates and higher physician satisfaction.

IMPORTANCE All events that transpire during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) cannot be adequately reproduced in the operative note. Video recording is already known to add important information regarding this operation.OBJECTIVE It is hypothesized that additional audio recordings can provide an even better procedural understanding by capturing the surgeons' considerations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe Simultaneous Video and Audio Recording of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Procedures (SONAR) trial is a multicenter prospective observational trial conducted in the Netherlands in which operators were requested to dictate essential steps of LC. Elective LCs of patients 18 years and older were eligible for inclusion. Data collection occurred from September 18, 2018, to November 13, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAdequacy rates for video recordings and operative note were compared. Adequacy was defined as the competent depiction of a surgical step and expressed as the number of adequate steps divided by the total applicable steps for all cases. In case of discrepancies, in which a step was adequately observed in the video recording but inadequately reported in the operative note, an expert panel analyzed the added value of the audio recording to resolve the discrepancy. RESULTS A total of 79 patients (49 women [62.0%]; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [15.9] years) were included. Video recordings resulted in higher adequacy for the inspection of the gallbladder (note, 39 of 79 cases [49.4%] vs video, 79 of 79 cases [100%]; P < .001), the inspection of the liver condition (note, 17 of 79 [21.5%] vs video, 78 of 79 cases [98.7%]; P < .001), and the circumferential dissection of the cystic duct and the cystic artery (note, 25 of 77 [32.5%] vs video, 62 of 77 [80.5%]; P < .001). The total adequacy was higher for the video recordings (note, 849 of 1089 observations [78.0%] vs video, 1005 of 1089 observations [92.3%]; P < .001). In the cases of discrepancies between video and note, additional audio recordings lowered discrepancy rates for the inspection of the gallbladder (without audio, 40 of 79 cases [50.6%] vs with audio, 17 of 79 cases [21.5%]; P < .001), the inspection of the liver condition (without audio, 61 of 79 [77.2%] vs with audio, 37 of 79 [46.8%]; P < .001), the circumferential dissection of the cystic duct and the cystic artery (without audio, 43 of 77 cases [55.8%] vs with audio, 17 of 77 cases [22.1%]; P < .001), and similarly for the removal of the first accessory trocar (without audio, 27 of 79 [34.2%] vs with audio, 16 of 79 [20.3%]; P = .02), the second accessory trocar (without audio, 24 of 79 [30.4%] vs with audio, 11 of 79 [13.9%]; P < .001), and the third accessory trocar (without audio, 27 of 79 [34.2%] vs with audio, 14 of 79 [17.7%]; P < .001). The total discrepancy was lower with audio adjustment (without audio, 254 of 1089 observations [23.3%] vs with audio, 128 of 1089 observations [11.8%]; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Audio recording during LC significantly improves the adequacy of depicting...

The availability of intraoperative multimedia recording is increasing. Considering the growing call for physicians’ accountability, it is inevitable that multimedia will play an important role in aiding quality control by improving the adequacy of operative reporting. However, the perspectives of medical professionals on this matter are poorly known. In this cross-disciplinary survey, we aimed to investigate the current viewpoints concerning the use of multimedia recording in the operating room. We conducted an electronic survey among all affiliated members of the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands, the Dutch Urological Association and the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology containing questions regarding current use of intraoperative recording and the level of likelihood or objection for certain scenarios. The response rate was 27.8%. The survey encompasses 370 (54.5%) surgeons, 71 (10.5%) urologists, 80 (11.8%) gynecologists, and 158 (23.3%) residents in training. 52.4% of respondents feel that the currently used operative report is insufficient for future quality requirements. 58.5% think it is unlikely they would behave differently during surgery when intra-operative video recording is applied. 82.8% think it is unlikely that their surgical methods would be altered. 63.8% of respondents preferred only video registration when intraoperative recording is implemented. The majority of respondents agree that the current method of operative reporting is insufficient for future quality requirements. There is support for intraoperative video recording, however, legal transparency is needed before either intraoperative video or audio recording could be implemented to protect not only the patients, but also the healthcare providers.

We present an updated overview of the literature comparing normothermic with hypothermic machine perfusion in porcine kidneys. We conducted a systematic literature review in Embase, Medline Epub (Ovid), Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar on studies comparing normothermic (NMP) to hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) in porcine kidneys. A meta‐analysis was judged inappropriate because of heterogeneity in study design and perfusion methods. The quality of evidence of each included study was assessed. We included 8 studies. One out of 5 studies reported a significant difference in peak renal blood flow in favor of NMP. Oxygen consumption was significantly higher in NMP kidneys in 2 out of 5 studies. Peak creatinine clearance in NMP was significantly higher than that in HMP in 1 out of 6 studies. Two out of 4 studies reported a higher degree of epithelial vacuolation in kidneys receiving NMP over HMP. None of the studies found a significant difference between NMP and HMP in peak serum creatinine or graft survival after autotransplantation. The results need to be interpreted with caution in view of the diversity in perfusion protocols, the low quality of evidence, and the limited sample sizes.