RESUMEN
Operating theatres and surgical resource consumption comprise a significant proportion of healthcare costs. Inefficiencies in theatre lists remain an important focus for cost management, along with reducing patient morbidity and mortality. With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of patients on theatre waiting lists has surged. Hence, there is a pressing need to utilise the already limited theatre time and fraught resources with innovative methods. In this systematic review, we discuss the Golden Patient Initiative (GPI), in which the first patient on the operating list is pre-assessed the day prior to surgery, and we aim to assess its impact and overall efficacy. A literature search using the following four databases was conducted to identify and select all clinical research concerning the GPI: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane library. Two independent authors screened articles against the eligibility criteria, using a process adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data extracted included outcomes measured, follow-up period, and study design. The results showed significant heterogeneity, and hence a narrative review was conducted; 13 of the 73 eligible articles were included for analysis. Outcomes included delay in theatre start time, number of surgical case cancellations, and changes to total case numbers. Across the studies, a 19-30-minute improvement in theatre start time was reported (p<0.05), as well as a statistically significant decrease in case cancellations. Our analysis provides encouraging conclusions with regard to greater theatre efficiency following the application of GPI, a low-cost solution that can easily be implemented to help improve patient safety and lead to cost savings. However, at present, it is largely implemented among local trusts, and hence larger multi-centre studies are required to gather conclusive evidence about the efficacy of the initiative.
RESUMEN
Background The trapeziometacarpal articulation in the thumb is a joint that is second-most commonly affected by osteoarthritis, and this can lead to considerable hand pain and disability. Currently, there is a multiplicity of surgical options available to address this problem, yet none has proven to be significantly superior to the others. Objective This study aims to compare the outcome of trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition versus trapeziometacarpal joint replacement for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Materials and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards. The NICE Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) tool was used to search articles. One randomized controlled trial (RCT), one prospective cohort study and two retrospective cohort studies were identified. Results Our results demonstrate a significant difference in the Quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (QDASH) score between the trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) and Joint Replacement groups with the joint replacement group exhibiting better QDASH scores than the LRTI group. We also found that those who had a joint replacement had a significantly better thumb opposition than those in the LRTI group, as demonstrated by a superior Kapandji score. However, the complication rate of joint replacement appears to be higher. Conclusion Our study reveals that while both treatment options are valid, the limited body of evidence currently available shows that joint replacement carries more risks and thus should not replace the current standard treatment of trapeziectomy with LRTI. This study highlights the need for more trials to be performed to more accurately compare the two treatment modalities. For the time being, we advocate that joint replacement is only performed by surgeons who perform this procedure regularly to reduce the risk of complications.