No abstract

Background: Burnout poses significant challenges during training years in residency and later in the career. Meditation is a tool to treat stress-related conditions and promote wellness. Telomere length may be affected by burnout and stress. However, the benefits of meditation have not been fully demonstrated in health care professionals.Objective: We assessed the effects of a 12-week ‘Heartfulness Meditation’ program on burnout, emotional wellness, and telomere length in residents, faculty members, and nurses at a large community teaching hospital during the 2015–16 academic year.Methods: All subjects completed a baseline Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and Emotional Wellness Assessment (EWA) at the beginning of the study. Meditators received instructions in Heartfulness Meditation. At week 12, subjects completed a follow up MBI and EWA scores. Salivary telomere length was measured at baseline and week 12.Results: Twenty-seven out of a total 155 residents (17.4%) along with eight faculty physicians and 12 nurses participated in the study. Thirty-five enrolled as meditators and 12 as controls. At 12 weeks, the meditators had statistically significant improvement in all measures of burnout and in nearly all attributes of EWA. Controls showed no statistically significant changes in either burnout or emotional wellness scores. Relative telomere length increased with statistical significance in a younger subset of meditators.Conclusion: Our results indicate that meditation offers an accessible and efficient method by which physician and nurse burnout can be ameliorated and wellness can be enhanced. The increased telomere length is an interesting finding but needs to be confirmed with further research.Abbreviations: EWA: Emotional wellness assessment; MBI: Maslach burnout inventory; EE: Emotional exhaustion; DP: Depersonalization; PA: Personal accomplishment; PI: Prinicipal investigator; JT: Jayaram Thimmapuram

No abstract

Since its introduction in 1997, robotic surgery has overcome many limitations, including setup costs and surgeon training. The use of robotics in general surgery remains unknown. This study evaluates robotic-assisted procedures in general surgery by comparing characteristics with its nonrobotic (laparoscopic and open) counterparts. Weighted Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2008, 2009) were used to identify the top 12 procedures for robotic general surgery. Robotic cases were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes 17.41 and 17.42. Procedures were grouped: esophagogastric, colorectal, adrenalectomy, lysis of adhesion, and cholecystectomy. Analyses were descriptive, t tests, χ2s, and logistic regression. Charges and length of stay were adjusted for gender, age, race, payer, hospital bed size, hospital location, hospital region, median household income, Charlson score, and procedure type. There were 1,389,235 (97.4%) nonrobotic and 37,270 (2.6%) robotic cases. Robotic cases increased from 0.8 per cent (2008) to 4.3 per cent (2009, P < 0.001). In all subgroups, robotic surgery had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.9 days) than open surgery (6.1 days) and lower charges (median $30,540) than laparoscopic ($34,537) and open ($46,704) surgery. Fewer complications were seen in robotic-assisted colorectal, adrenalectomy and lysis of adhesion; however, robotic cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures had higher complications than nonrobotic surgery ( P < 0.05). Overall robotic surgery had a lower mortality rate (0.097%) than nonrobotic surgeries per 10,000 procedures (laparoscopic 0.48%, open 0.92%; P < 0.001). The cost of robotic surgery is generally considered a prohibitive factor. In the present study, when overall cost was considered, including length of stay, robotic surgery appeared to be cost-effective and as safe as nonrobotic surgery except in cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures. Further study is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of this new technology.

No abstract

This study supports the need for a concussed athlete to have access to a provider trained in concussion management in a timely fashion in order to prevent delayed recovery and return to play.

Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is a safe and reliable option for patients with colon cancer. This study examined factors associated with LC use and cost differences between LC and open colectomy (OC). Using the Cost & Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database (2008), patients with colon cancer undergoing elective LC or OC were selected. Chi square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess differences between LC and OC. Logistic and multiple regression analysis was used to determine variables associated with LC and predictors of cost. All analysis was weighted. A total of 63,950 patients were identified (LC 8.1%, OC 91.9%). The majority was female (52.7%), white (61.4%), using Medicare (61.1%), and had surgery performed at a large (64.2%), nonteaching (56.9%), urban (87.3%) hospital in the South (37.7%). Mean age was 70 years. On unadjusted analysis, LC was associated with a lower mortality rate (1.7 vs 2.4%), fewer complications (18.9 vs 27.1%), shorter length of stay (5 vs 7 days), and lower total charges ($41,971 vs $43,459, all P < 0.001). LC is a less expensive but less popular surgical option for colon cancer. Stage, race, Charlson score, teaching status, location, and hospital size influence the use of a laparoscopic approach. LC is associated with fewer complications and decreased mortality which contribute to its lower cost as compared with OC.

Overall, robotic-assisted surgery has significantly reduced median LOS, complications, and mortality compared with nonrobotic surgery. Results of this study support the contention that robotic-assisted surgery is as safe as nonrobotic surgery and offers the surgeon an additional technique for performing cardiac surgery.