手术室使用腹腔内化疗安全方案的当前实践和认识:IP-OR国际调查的结果。

IF 1.4 Q4 ONCOLOGY Pleura and Peritoneum Pub Date : 2021-02-12 eCollection Date: 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1515/pp-2020-0148
Daniel Clerc, Martin Hübner, K R Ashwin, S P Somashekhar, Beate Rau, Wim Ceelen, Wouter Willaert, Naoual Bakrin, Nathalie Laplace, Mohammed Al Hosni, Edgar Luis Garcia Lozcano, Sebastian Blaj, Pompiliu Piso, Andrea Di Giorgio, Giuseppe Vizzelli, Cécile Brigand, Jean-Baptiste Delhorme, Amandine Klipfel, Rami Archid, Giorgi Nadiradze, Marc A Reymond, Olivia Sgarbura
{"title":"手术室使用腹腔内化疗安全方案的当前实践和认识:IP-OR国际调查的结果。","authors":"Daniel Clerc,&nbsp;Martin Hübner,&nbsp;K R Ashwin,&nbsp;S P Somashekhar,&nbsp;Beate Rau,&nbsp;Wim Ceelen,&nbsp;Wouter Willaert,&nbsp;Naoual Bakrin,&nbsp;Nathalie Laplace,&nbsp;Mohammed Al Hosni,&nbsp;Edgar Luis Garcia Lozcano,&nbsp;Sebastian Blaj,&nbsp;Pompiliu Piso,&nbsp;Andrea Di Giorgio,&nbsp;Giuseppe Vizzelli,&nbsp;Cécile Brigand,&nbsp;Jean-Baptiste Delhorme,&nbsp;Amandine Klipfel,&nbsp;Rami Archid,&nbsp;Giorgi Nadiradze,&nbsp;Marc A Reymond,&nbsp;Olivia Sgarbura","doi":"10.1515/pp-2020-0148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Experience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.</p>","PeriodicalId":20231,"journal":{"name":"Pleura and Peritoneum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/pp-2020-0148","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current practice and perceptions of safety protocols for the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating room: results of the IP-OR international survey.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Clerc,&nbsp;Martin Hübner,&nbsp;K R Ashwin,&nbsp;S P Somashekhar,&nbsp;Beate Rau,&nbsp;Wim Ceelen,&nbsp;Wouter Willaert,&nbsp;Naoual Bakrin,&nbsp;Nathalie Laplace,&nbsp;Mohammed Al Hosni,&nbsp;Edgar Luis Garcia Lozcano,&nbsp;Sebastian Blaj,&nbsp;Pompiliu Piso,&nbsp;Andrea Di Giorgio,&nbsp;Giuseppe Vizzelli,&nbsp;Cécile Brigand,&nbsp;Jean-Baptiste Delhorme,&nbsp;Amandine Klipfel,&nbsp;Rami Archid,&nbsp;Giorgi Nadiradze,&nbsp;Marc A Reymond,&nbsp;Olivia Sgarbura\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/pp-2020-0148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Experience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pleura and Peritoneum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/pp-2020-0148\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pleura and Peritoneum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2020-0148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleura and Peritoneum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2020-0148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的:评估在高温腹膜内化疗(HIPEC)和加压腹膜内气雾剂化疗(PIPAC)期间手术室(OR)中预防环境相关风险的措施的风险感知和接受情况,麻醉师(Anest)、麻醉学护士(AnesthN)和手术室清洁人员(CleanS)。得分从0-10(最高)。结果:六个国家的十个中心参与了这项研究(应答率100%)。收集了来自68名Surg(32%)、49名ScrubN(23%)、45名Anest(21%)、31名AnesthN(15%)和18名CleanS(9%)的211份回复。个人对保护措施的接受率为51.4%,各专业之间以及HIPEC和PIPAC之间的情况相似。PIPAC和HIPEC的感知保护水平分别为7.57和7.17,分别地(p结论:在HIPEC和PIPAC期间,安全协议的当前实践经验相似。个人对保护措施的接受程度相当低。PIPAC的安全感知更好,但感知的保护水平仍然相对较低。获得更多信息的意愿很高HIPEC和PIPAC是有意义的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Current practice and perceptions of safety protocols for the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating room: results of the IP-OR international survey.

Objectives: To assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Methods: A multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).

Results: Ten centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).

Conclusions: Experience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Do all patients that undergo a ‘complete’ secondary cytoreductive surgery for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, benefit from it? In vitro 3D microfluidic peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer model for testing different oxaliplatin-based HIPEC regimens. Ascites does not accompany pleural effusion developing under dasatinib therapy in patients with CML-CP. Active surveillance for low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) Peritoneal mestastases from rare ovarian cancer treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1