Canadian Journal of Surgery最新文献

Background: Comprehension of risks, benefits and alternative treatment options is poor among patients referred for cardiac surgery interventions. We sought to explore the impact of a formalized shared decision-making (SDM) process on patient comprehension and decisional quality among older patients referred for cardiac surgery.

Methods: We developed and evaluated a paper-based decision aid for cardiac surgery within the context of a prospective SDM design. Surgeons were trained in SDM through a Web-based program. We acted as decisional coaches, going through the decision aids with the patients and their families, and remaining available for consultation. Patients (aged ≥ 65 yr) undergoing isolated valve, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or CABG and valve surgery were eligible. Participants in the non-SDM phase followed standard care. Participants in the SDM group received a decision aid following cardiac catheterization, populated with individualized risk assessment, personal profile and comorbidity status. Both groups were assessed before surgery on comprehension, decisional conflict, decisional quality, anxiety and depression.

Results: We included 98 patients in the SDM group and 97 in the non-SDM group. Patients who received decision aids through a formalized SDM approach scored higher in comprehension (median 15.0, interquartile range [IQR] 12.0-18.0) than those who did not (median 9.0, IQR 7.0-12.0, p < 0.001). Decisional quality was greater in the SDM group (median 82.0, IQR 73.0-91.0) than in the non-SDM group (median 76.0, IQR 62.0-82.0, p < 0.05). Decisional conflict scores were lower in the SDM group (mean 1.76, standard deviation [SD] 1.14) than in the non-SDM group (mean 5.26, SD 1.02, p < 0.05). Anxiety and depression scores showed no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion: Institution of a formalized SDM process including individualized decision aids improved comprehension of risks, benefits and alternatives to cardiac surgery, as well as decisional quality, and did not result in increased levels of anxiety.

Background: Little is known about the quality and impact of Canadian-produced research relative to that of other developed nations. The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of Canadian authors to the orthopedic literature globally and nationally as well as Canada's research productivity in orthopedics. We hypothesized that Canada ranks among the most impactful countries in terms of orthopedic research productivity.

Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis to identify articles published between 2001 and 2020 in the category of orthopedics. We identified Canada's global rank in terms of overall productivity and assessed the contributions of individual Canadian authors. We also examined the quality of publications as determined by category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and publication in the top quartile of journals (%Q1) in terms of impact factor. In addition, we calculated the percentage of Canadian publications that were in orthopedics.

Results: We identified 10 821 orthopedic publications from 2001 to 2020. Canada placed sixth globally in terms of productivity in orthopedic research. The annual productivity of Canadian orthopedic researchers increased over the study period by a factor of 3.2. In terms of research quality, with a %Q1 of 36.5% and a CNCI of 1.22, Canada outperformed Asian countries and the United States; the latter country had a %Q1 of 35.3% and a CNCI of 1.14 over the study period.

Conclusion: The body of Canadian orthopedic literature has grown consistently over the past 20 years. Despite the overall leadership of the United States and other developed nations such as China and Japan, Canada ranks among the most influential countries in terms of the quality and quantity of orthopedic research.

SummaryThe provision of surgical care in Canada requires substantial improvement. In this commentary, we use the US Institute of Medicine's framework for assessing the quality of health care to explore system-wide challenges that affect surgical outcomes in Canada. Challenges include surgical wait times, long travel times for surgery, human resource constraints, equitable access to surgery, limited collection of data about the surgical pathway, a lack of transparency in the reporting of surgical outcomes and a lack of incentives for hospital systems to achieve high-quality outcomes. We propose solutions supported by available literature to help overcome some of these challenges.

Background: Delivering trauma and surgical care to Northern Quebec presents unique challenges owing to the region's remoteness, extreme weather and limited transport; the expansion of telehealth could help address these difficulties. We aimed to evaluate current surgical, trauma and telemedicine capacity in Nunavik, Quebec.

Methods: We used validated assessment tools, including the Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment and Supplies survey, the International Assessment of Capacity for Trauma index and the Maryland Health Care Commission Telemedicine Readiness tool to evaluate surgical, trauma and telemedicine capacity, respectively. We adapted these tools to the Northern Quebec context through discussions with local leadership. Data were collected in 2 regional hospitals - the Ungava Tulattavik Health Centre (UTHC) and the Inuulitsivik Health Centre (IHC) - and 12 Centres locaux de services communautaires (CLSCs; local community services centres) in 6 villages along the Hudson Bay coast and 6 villages along the Ungava Bay coast through iterative discussions with 4 chief nurses from each regional hospital and set of CLSCs; resources were confirmed through on-site evaluation by the respondents. We performed a descriptive analysis of the data.

Results: Surgical capacity was highest in the IHC (6.76) and lowest in the Ungava Bay CLSCs (5.52). Personnel (0%-0%) and procedures (13%-33%) were the least available resources. Trauma capacity was highest in the IHC (7.25) and lowest in the Hudson Bay CLSCs (5.58). Although equipment (90%-100%) and supplies (100%-100%) were readily available, personnel (0%-0%) and procedures (25%-56%) were lacking. The UTHC was most prepared for telehealth (67.80%), and the Ungava Bay CLSCs achieved a lower score (51.13%). Underdeveloped telehealth criteria included funding, administrative support, quality improvement and physical spaces (all 33%-67%).

Conclusion: Acute care capacity in Nunavik appears heterogeneous, with readily available equipment and supplies, but a lack of personnel capable of performing lifesaving procedures. To address the need for telemedicine, future initiatives should focus on improving funding, administrative support, physical spaces and quality-improvement initiatives.

Background: Advanced donor age paired with donation after cardiac death (DCD) increases the risk of transplantation, precluding widespread use of grafts from such donors worldwide. Our aim was to analyze outcomes of liver transplantation using grafts from older DCD donors and donation after brain death (DBD) donors.

Methods: Patients who underwent liver transplantation using grafts from deceased donors between January 2016 and December 2021 were included in the study. Short-and long-term outcomes were analyzed for 4 groups of patients: those who received DCD and DBD grafts from younger (< 50 yr) and older (≥ 50 yr) donors.

Results: Of the 807 patients included in the analysis, 44.7% (n = 361) of grafts were received from older donors, with grafts for older DCD donors comprising 4.7% of the total cohort (n = 38). Patients who received grafts from older donors had a lower incidence of biliary strictures than those who received grafts from younger donors (7.9% v. 20.0% for DCD donation, p = 0.14, and 4.9% v. 6.8% for DBD donation, p = 0.34), with a significantly lower incidence of ischemic-type biliary strictures in patients who received grafts from older versus younger DCD donors (2.6% v. 18.0%, p = 0.04). There was no difference in 1- and 3-year graft survival rates among patients who received grafts from older and younger DCD donors (92.1% v. 90.8% and 80.2% v. 80.9%, respectively) and those who received grafts from older and younger DBD donors (90.1% v. 93.2% and 85.3% v. 84.4%, respectively) (p = 0.85). Pretransplantation admission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] 9.041, p < 0.001) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (HR 2.197, p = 0.02) were found to significantly affect survival of grafts from older donors.

Conclusion: Donor age alone should not be the criterion to determine the acceptability of grafts in liver transplantation. With careful selection criteria, older DCD donors could make a valuable contribution to expanding the liver donor pool, with grafts that produce comparable results to those obtained with standard-criteria grafts.