Eponyms of Cranial Neurosurgical Instruments: An International Collaboration to Optimize the Field of Neurosurgery.

The basic set of a cranial instrument tray is filled with eponyms of surgical instruments named after surgeons and physicians from all corners of the medical world. These include pioneers like Castroviejo, Doyen, Frazier, Gigli, Mayfield, Raney, Weitlaner, and Yasargil. These innovators have always strived to enhance and simplify procedures, ultimately shaping the way we perform surgery today. It was a process, which took several generations of surgeons and trials of instruments before its current form could be established. In this paper, the authors provide background information through a historical perspective on the pioneering surgeons and physicians, after whom the instruments were named. Data were collected by searching PubMed, Google Scholar/Books, Google, and the HathiTrust Digital Library. Additional information was obtained via personal contact with American and European medical institutions, libraries, museums, as well as with the surgeons' family members and their perspective foundations. Remembering the life stories of the inventors behind commonly used eponyms in the operating theater reminds us of the long history of even the most rudimentary neurosurgical tool. This unrelenting strive for perfection reminds us, as surgeons, of our duty to continuously assess and improve our surgical tools and processes for the benefit of our patients.

Organizing a COVID-19 triage unit: a Swiss perspective.

Background: With the rapid global spread of the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, urgent health-care measures have been implemented. We describe the organizational process in setting up a coronavirus disease 2019 triage unit in a Swiss tertiary care hospital. Methods: Our triage unit was set-up outside of the main hospital building and consists of three areas: 1. Pre-triage, 2. Triage, and 3. Triage plus. The Pre-triage check-points identify any potential COVID-19-infected patients and re-direct them to the main Triage area where trained medical staff screen which patients undergo diagnostic testing. If testing is indicated, nasopharyngeal swabs are performed. If patients require further investigations, they are referred to Triage plus. At this stage, patients are then discharged home after additional testing or admitted to the hospital for management. Observations: A total of 1265 patients were screened between 10 March 2020 and 12 April 2020 at our Triage unit. Of these, 112 (8.9%) tested positive. 73 (65%) of the positively-tested patients were female and 39 (35%) were male. The mean age for all patients was 43.8 years (SD 16.3 years). Distinguishing between genders, mean age for females was 41.1 (SD 16.5) and mean age for males was 48.6 (SD 14.9), with females being significantly younger than males (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our triage unit was set-up as part of a large-scale restructuring process. Current challenges include low sensitivity for test results as well as limited staff and resources. We hope that our experience will help other health care institutions develop similar triage systems.