Informed consent in plastic surgery, evaluation of its effectiveness for mutual satisfaction of patient and doctor: Comparison of methods.

BACKGROUND: The acquisition of signed informed consent is not always enough to ensure adequate medical protection. Particularly, in plastic surgery, improving the doctor-patient relationship by understanding the patient's emotions and expectations becomes a determining factor when choosing the best therapeutic strategy for the subject in question, which may also include nonsurgical eligibility. METHODS: Ninety patients with various plastic surgery disabilities were recruited and randomly divided into three groups: Patients in the first group underwent the ``traditional'' clinical interview, those in the second underwent the clinical approach called Shared Decision Making (SDM), and those in the third group received both the SDM and a questionnaire evaluating patient expectations (Expectation Questionnaire-Pgm). At the end of each interview, a specialist physician in Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery was asked to fill in a questionnaire regarding his/her satisfaction with the method used. Likewise, the patient filled in a questionnaire on his/her satisfaction with the interview. RESULTS: For the doctors, the third method was superior in investigating patient expectations, emotions, and personal preferences. For the patients, the third method scored significantly higher than the first one for overall satisfaction and ability to evaluate personal preferences and needs and higher than the first and second methods in assessing expectations. CONCLUSIONS: For doctors, the SDM coupled with the Expectation Questionnaire-Pgm proved to be the most useful tool to understand patient expectations and emotions and thus improve the medical-patient relationship through shared decision-making. The third method therefore aims for better patient coverage and improved informed consent, thereby reducing the likelihood of litigation and better assessing nonfitness for operation.

Routine prophylactic ureteral stenting before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Safety and usefulness from a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: There are very few evidences about safety and usefulness of routine prophylactic ureteral stenting (PUS) before cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected data about patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC for different sites of primary disease was carried out focusing on ureteral complications. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between December 2010 and June 2017 were considered. All patients underwent PUS before CRS and HIPEC. Of them, 91 (66.4%) patients received pelvic peritonectomy, 49 (35.8%) pelvic lymphadenectomy, 31 (22.6%) left hemicolectomy, 44 (32.4%) right hemicolectomy, 46 (33.6%) rectal resection, 56 (40.9%) hysteroannessiectomy, and 39 (28.5%) appendectomy. There was one (0.7%) postoperative ureteral fistula. The cumulative risk of ureteral stent-related major complications was 4.3% (two patients (1.4%) had protracted gross hematuria, two patients (1.4%) had urinary sepsis, and three patients (2.9%) developed hydronephrosis after a period from removing ureteral stents and required restenting. Morbidity due to ureteral stenting was associated with a longer length of stay (LOS) (p=0.053). A total of 52 patients (44.1%) developed renal dysfunction according to the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney-disease) criteria: 19.5% were in risk class, 10.2% in acute renal injury class, and 14.4% in acute renal failure class. CONCLUSION: PUS could be a useful tool for reducing iatrogenic ureteral injury, but it is associated with a non-negligible morbidity, which implies longer LOS. A more accurate patient selection for PUS is necessary.