-
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Aug 2022Although surgical procedures have been occurring as early at 6500 BC, the modern sense of the operating room (OR) did not exist until more recently. As aseptic... (Review)
Review
Although surgical procedures have been occurring as early at 6500 BC, the modern sense of the operating room (OR) did not exist until more recently. As aseptic techniques and surgical procedures began to evolve, so too did the OR table. The OR table began to transition from a static, wooden table to a dynamic table with the ability to position patients for a variety of procedures. With the advent of intraoperative imaging for orthopaedic procedures, OR tables have adapted and allow for imaging of bony anatomy by using radiolucent materials. These changes have led to the development of numerous OR tables, each with their own sets of advantages and disadvantages. There is currently no summary of the development, indications, benefits, and disadvantages of the various OR tables available to orthopaedic surgeons in the literature. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive review of orthopaedic operating tables for both the junior orthopaedic resident and experienced attending surgeon.
Topics: Humans; Operating Rooms; Operating Tables; Orthopedic Procedures; Orthopedics
PubMed: 34414504
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-021-03095-w -
Anaesthesia Apr 2018
Topics: Electroencephalography; Entropy; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Intraoperative Awareness; Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring; Operating Tables
PubMed: 29536520
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14256 -
Current Robotics Reports 2021With the rapid growth and development of robotic technology, its implementation in medical fields has also been significantly increasing, with the transition from the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
With the rapid growth and development of robotic technology, its implementation in medical fields has also been significantly increasing, with the transition from the period of mainly using surgical robots to the era with combinations of multiple types of robots. Therefore, this paper introduces the newest robotic systems and technology applied in operating rooms as well as their architectures for integration.
RECENT FINDINGS
Besides surgical robots, other types of robotic devices and machines such as diagnostic and treatment devices with robotic operating tables, robotic microscopes, and assistant robots for surgeons emerge one after another, improving the quality of surgery from different aspects. With the increasing number and type of robots, their integration platforms are also proposed and being spread.
SUMMARY
This review paper presents state-of-the-art robot-related technology in the operating room. Robotic platforms and robot components which appeared in the last decade are described. In addition, system architectures for the integration of robots as well as other devices in operating rooms are also introduced and compared.
PubMed: 34977594
DOI: 10.1007/s43154-021-00055-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Air; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33969911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to one third of people in hospitals or community care,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to one third of people in hospitals or community care, and one fifth of nursing home residents. Pressure ulcers are more likely in people with reduced mobility and poor skin condition, such as older people or those with vascular disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in people at risk of developing pressure ulcers? What are the effects of treatments in people with pressure ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 64 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: air-filled vinyl boots, air-fluidised supports, alternating-pressure surfaces (including mattresses), alternative foam mattresses, constant low-pressure supports, debridement, electric profiling beds, electrotherapy, hydrocellular heel supports, low-air-loss beds (including hydrotherapy beds), low-level laser therapy, low-tech constant-low-pressure supports, medical sheepskin overlays, nutritional supplements, orthopaedic wool padding, pressure-relieving overlays on operating tables, pressure-relieving surfaces, repositioning (regular "turning"), seat cushions, standard beds, standard care, standard foam mattresses, standard tables, surgery, therapeutic ultrasound, topical lotions and dressings, topical negative pressure, and topical phenytoin.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Bandages; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Debridement; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Patient Positioning; Phenytoin; Pressure Ulcer; Standard of Care; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 21524319
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Population Therapeutics and... 2022The modular operating theater (MOT) system is often used in operating rooms since it is incorporated into a single control panel, enabling its operation more effectively...
The modular operating theater (MOT) system is often used in operating rooms since it is incorporated into a single control panel, enabling its operation more effectively and efficiently. The MOT in the present study's operating room employs analytical techniques, and moreover has complicated space needs. Any hospital that wants to implement MOT in the operating room must adhere to the regulations of the Indonesian Ministry of Health, as everything must adhere to a specific criteria. Additionally, MOT must fulfill the primary components required to ensure that the operational process proceeds properly and without technological difficulties. The criteria also includes the use of insulated doors (swing or sliding) to control the pathogens, bacteriostatic floors with corner covings, the operating table must be set in such a way that the laminar airflow reaches it, the use of modern operating tables, the adequate filtration of the air conditioning system and the air distribution system, and use of sterile corridors. The MOT in the operating room must also include the medical gas pipeline system (MGPS), flexible arm light pendants, precise indications on surgeon control panels and electrical panels, scrub stations, comprehensive utility pendants, as well as static/dynamic clean/dirty boxes. The operating room MOT requirements are specified in PERMENKES RI No. 1204/MENKES/SK/X/2004, and any hospital that wishes to construct one must adhere to them. Several requirements are outlined in the study that must be adhered to while manufacturing MOT. For example, walls and ceilings must be insulated with PUF, EPS, or stainless steel panels.
Topics: Air Microbiology; Hospitals; Humans; Operating Rooms
PubMed: 35848203
DOI: 10.47750/jptcp.2022.936 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Apr 2014The present study was conducted to investigate the influence of different operating table heights on the quality of laryngeal view and the discomfort of the anaesthetist... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The present study was conducted to investigate the influence of different operating table heights on the quality of laryngeal view and the discomfort of the anaesthetist during enodotracheal intubation.
METHODS
Eight anaesthetists participated, to each of whom 20 patients were allocated. Before induction of anaesthesia, the height of the operating table was adjusted to place the patient's forehead at one of four landmarks on the anaesthetist's body (the order being determined by block randomization with eight blocks): umbilicus (Group U), lowest rib margin (Group R), xiphoid process (Group X), and nipple (Group N). Next, the anaesthetist began the laryngoscopy and evaluated the grade of laryngeal view. For this 'initial posture', the anaesthetist was not allowed to adjust his or her posture (flexion or extension of the neck, lower back, knee, and ankle). This laryngeal view was then re-graded after these constraints were relaxed. At each posture, the anaesthetist's joint movements and discomfort during mask ventilation or intubation were evaluated.
RESULTS
The laryngeal view before postural changes was better in Group N than in Group U (P=0.003). The objective and subjective measurements of neck or lower back flexion during intubation were higher in Group U than in Groups X and N (P<0.01 for each). The improvement of laryngeal view resulting from postural changes correlated with the anaesthetist's discomfort score before the postural change (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Higher operating tables (at the xiphoid process and nipple level of the anaesthetist) can provide better laryngeal views with less discomfort during tracheal intubation. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT01649973 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Equipment Design; Ergonomics; Female; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngoscopy; Larynx; Male; Middle Aged; Occupational Health; Operating Tables; Patient Positioning; Posture
PubMed: 24355831
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet428 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2011
Topics: Digital Rectal Examination; Humans; Lithotripsy; Male; Operating Tables; Phimosis; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Urinary Incontinence; Urology
PubMed: 21756375
DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382011000300001 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2008Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to a third of people in hospitals or community care,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to a third of people in hospitals or community care, and a fifth of nursing home residents. Pressure ulcers are more likely in people with reduced mobility and poor skin condition, such as older people or those with vascular disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in people at risk of developing pressure ulcers? What are the effects of treatments in people with pressure ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 60 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: air-filled vinyl boots, air-fluidised supports, alternating pressure surfaces (including mattresses), alternative foam mattresses, constant low-pressure supports, debridement, electric profiling beds, electrotherapy, hydrocellular heel supports, low-air-loss beds (including hydrotherapy beds), low-level laser therapy, low-tech constant low-pressure supports, medical sheepskin overlays, nutritional supplements, orthopaedic wool padding, pressure-relieving overlays on operating tables, pressure-relieving surfaces, repositioning (regular "turning"), seat cushions, standard beds, standard care, standard foam mattresses, standard tables, surgery, therapeutic ultrasound, topical lotions and dressings, topical negative pressure, and topical phenytoin.
Topics: Animals; Bandages; Beds; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Phenytoin; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 19450317
DOI: No ID Found