Sustainable surgical practices: A comprehensive approach to reducing environmental impact.

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the environmental impact of surgical procedures and highlights potential strategies to reduce the associated greenhouse gas emissions. We discuss procurement, waste management, and energy consumption, providing examples of successful interventions in each area. We also emphasize the importance of adopting the Green Theatre Checklist as a useful tool for clinicians aiming to implement sustainable surgical practices.

The Environmental Impact of Spine Surgery and the Path to Sustainability.

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review published literature discussing sustainable health care and to identify aspects that pertain to spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In recent years, research has investigated the contribution of surgical specialties to climate change. To our knowledge, no article has yet been published discussing the impact specific to spinal procedures and possible mitigation strategies. METHODS: A literature search was performed for the present study on relevant terms across four electronic databases. References of included studies were also investigated. RESULTS: Spine surgery has a growing environmental impact. Investigations of analogous specialties find that procurement is the single largest source of emissions. Carbon-conscious procurement strategies will be needed to mitigate this fully, but clinicians can best reduce their impact by adopting a minimalist approach when using surgical items. Reduced wastage of disposable goods and increased recycling are beneficial. Technology can aid remote access to clinicians, and also enable patient education. CONCLUSIONS: Spine-surgery-specific research is warranted to evaluate its carbon footprint. A broad range of measures is recommended from preventative medicine to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Study protocol for the St James's Hospital, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin Allied Researchers' (STTAR) Bioresource for COVID-19.

Background: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began in Ireland with the first confirmed positive case in March 2020. In the early stages of the pandemic clinicians and researchers in two affiliated Dublin hospitals identified the need for a COVID-19 biobanking initiative to support and enhance research into the disease. Through large scale analysis of clinical, regional, and genetic characteristics of COVID-19 patients, biobanks have helped identify, and so protect, at risk patient groups The STTAR Bioresource has been created to collect and store data and linked biological samples from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthy and disease controls. Aim: The primary objective of this study is to build a biobank, to understand the clinical characteristics and natural history of COVID-19 infection with the long-term goal of research into improved disease understanding, diagnostic tests and treatments. Methods: This is a prospective dual-site cohort study across two tertiary acute university teaching hospitals. Patients are recruited from inpatient wards or outpatient clinics. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection as well as healthy and specific disease control groups are recruited.  Biological samples are collected and a case report form detailing demographic and medical background is entered into the bespoke secure online Dendrite database. Impact: The results of this study will be used to inform national and international strategy on health service provision and disease management related to COVID-19. In common with other biobanks, study end points  evolve over time as new research questions emerge. They currently include patient survival, occurrence of severe complications of the disease or its therapy, occurrence of persistent symptoms following recovery from the acute illness and vaccine responses.

High anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in healthcare workers in an Irish university teaching hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers are at very high risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection. This study evaluated anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers in a tertiary care hospital and then correlated seroprevalence with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection in this population since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: The study was approved by our institution's Joint Research Ethics Committee in June 2020. All volunteers were provided with a consent form, an information leaflet and a questionnaire on the day before phlebotomy. Serum samples were collected from 1176 participants over a 3-month period and analysed using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) which detects total antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein of SARs-COV-2. RESULTS: Overall anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among participating healthcare workers was 17.9%. The rate of confirmed infection by real-time polymerase chain reaction molecular testing prior to participation was 12.2%. Of 211 participants who had a reactive antibody test result, 37% did not have COVID-19 infection confirmed at any point prior to participation in this study, either having had a swab which did not detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA or having never been tested. Seropositivity was the highest (30%) in the youngest quintile of age (20-29 years old). Staff with more patient contact had a higher seroprevalence of 19.5% compared to 13.4% in staff with less patient contact. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a substantial proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare workers may be asymptomatic or subclinical and thus potentially represent a significant transmission risk to colleagues and patients.

Outcomes of the short Synacthen test: what is the role of the 60 min sample in clinical practice?

In recent years, the short Synacthen test (SS) has become the most widely used test to assess adrenal reserve. Despite its frequent use, there are still several areas related to the short Synacthen test (SST), which have no consensus including the optimum sampling times, that is, whether a 60 min post-Synacthen administration cortisol is necessary or not. METHODOLOGY: We performed a retrospective data analysis of 492 SSTs performed on adult patients in a tertiary referral teaching hospital in Ireland. The SSTs were performed in the inpatient and outpatient setting and included patients across all medical disciplines and not exclusively to the endocrinology department. RESULTS: 313 patients had 0, 30 and 60 min samples available for analysis. A total of 270/313 (82%) were deemed to pass the test, that is, cortisol ≥500 nmol/L at both 30 and 60 min. Of the 313 patients, 19 (6%) patients had an indeterminate response, cortisol <500 nmol/L at 30 min, but rising to ≥500 nmol/L on the 60 min sample. Of these 19 patients, only 9/19 patients had a serum cortisol level at 30 min <450 nmol/L, requiring clinical treatment with glucocorticoid replacement. All 24/313 (8%) patients who had insufficient responses at 60 min were also insufficient at 30 min sampling. No individuals passed (≥500 nmol/L) at 30 min and then failed (<500 nmol/L) at 60 min. CONCLUSION: Using the 30 min cortisol sample post-Synacthen administration alone identifies clinically relevant adrenal insufficiency in the majority of cases. A small subset of patients have a suboptimal response at 30 min but have a 60 min cortisol concentration above the threshold for a pass. Data regarding the long-term outcomes and management of such patients are lacking and require further study.