Dataset Information

An international multidisciplinary peer-driven consensus on the optimal use of hemostatic powders in surgical practice.

ABSTRACT: Bleeding is a consequence of insufficient hemostasis and excessive bleeding at a surgical site is associated with an increased risk of post-operative infection, transfusion and re-operation, in addition to increased hospital length of stay and costs. Surgeons employ a range of methods to achieve hemostasis, including topical hemostatic agents of differing composition and properties. Hemostatic powders are a sub-group of topical hemostats, which can be used in helping as adjuncts to manage troublesome bleeding in a variety of situations. As this technology is relatively new and potentially not well known by the broad surgical community, no specific guidelines or recommendations for the optimal use of hemostatic powders in surgery currently exist. A steering group throughout Europe of multidisciplinary surgeons, expert in hemostasis and hemostatics, identified from literature and from personal experience, five key topics. When to use hemostatic powder, the evidence for use, benefits of use, safety remarks and considerations in various surgical specialties. Thirty-seven statements were subsequently drawn from these five key topics. An online survey was sent to 128 high-volume surgeons working in breast surgery, gynaecological and obstetric surgery, general and emergency surgery, thoracic surgery and urological surgery in Europe to assess agreement (consensus) with these statements. Consensus was defined as high if ≥ 75% and very high if ≥ 90% of respondents agreed with a statement. A total of 79 responses were received and consensus among the surgical experts was very high in 27 (73%) statements, high in 8 (22%) statements and was not achieved in 2 (5%) statements. Based on the consensus scores, the steering group produced 16 key recommendations which they considered could improve patient outcomes by reducing post-operative bleeding and its associated complications using hemostatic powder.

SUBMITTER: Eden C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8317684 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFirst, establishment and validation of a novel questionnaire documenting the burden of xerostomia and sialadenitis symptoms, including quality of life. Second, to compare two versions regarding the answering scale (proposed developed answers Q3 vs. 0-10 visual analogue scale Q10) of our newly developed questionnaire, in order to evaluate their comprehension by patients and their reproducibility in time.Study designThe study is a systematic review regarding the evaluation of the existing questionnaire and a cohort study regarding the validation of our new MSGS questionnaire.Materials and methodsA Multidisciplinary Salivary Gland Society (MSGS) questionnaire consisting of 20 questions and two scoring systems was developed to quantify symptoms of dry mouth and sialadenitis. Validation of the questionnaire was carried out on 199 patients with salivary pathologies (digestive, nasal, or age-related xerostomia, post radiation therapy, post radioiodine therapy, Sjögren's syndrome, IgG4 disease, recurrent juvenile parotitis, stones, and strictures) and a control group of 66 healthy volunteers. The coherence of the questionnaire's items, its reliability to distinguish patients from healthy volunteers, its comparison with unstimulated sialometry, and the time to fill both versions were assessed.ResultsThe novel MSGS questionnaire showed good internal coherence of the items, indicating its pertinence: the scale reliability coefficients amounted to a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 for Q10 and 0.90 for Q3. The time to complete Q3 and Q10 amounted, respectively, to 5.23 min (±2.3 min) and 5.65 min (±2.64 min) for patients and to 3.94 min (±3.94 min) and 3.75 min (±2.11 min) for healthy volunteers. The difference between Q3 and Q10 was not significant.ConclusionWe present a novel self-administered questionnaire quantifying xerostomia and non-tumoral salivary gland pathologies. We recommend the use of the Q10 version, as its scale type is well known in the literature and it translation for international use will be more accurate. Laryngoscope, 132:322-331, 2022.

Dataset Information

An international multidisciplinary peer-driven consensus on the optimal use of hemostatic powders in surgical practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets