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, 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","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, 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\",\"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}
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.