Search

Background: A program of gasless laparoscopy (GL) has been implemented in rural North-East India. To facilitate safe adoption, participating rural surgeons underwent rigorous training prior to independent clinical practice. An online registry was established to capture clinical data on safety and efficacy and to evaluate initial learning curves for gasless laparoscopy. Methods: Surgeons who had completed the GL training program participated in the online RedCap Registry. Patients included in the registry provided informed consent for the use of their data. Data on operative times, conversion rates, perioperative complications, length of stay, and hospital costs were collected. Fixed reference cumulative sum (CUSUM) model was used to evaluate the learning curve based on operative times and conversion rates published in the literature. Results: Four surgeons from three rural hospitals in North-East India participated in the registry. The data were collected over 12 months, from September 2019 to August 2020. One hundred and twenty-three participants underwent GL procedures, including 109 females (88.6%) and 14 males. GL procedures included cholecystectomy, appendicectomy, tubal ligation, ovarian cystectomy, diagnostic laparoscopy, and adhesiolysis. The mean operative time was 75.3 (42.05) minutes for all the surgeries. Conversion from GL to open surgery occurred in 11.4% of participants, with 8.9% converted to conventional laparoscopy. The main reasons for conversion were the inability to secure an operative view, lack of operating space, and adhesions. The mean length of stay was 3 (2.1) days. The complication rate was 5.7%, with one postoperative death. The CUSUM analysis for GL cholecystectomy showed a longer learning curve for operative time and few conversions. The learning curve for GL tubal ligation was relatively shorter. Conclusion: Gasless laparoscopy can be safely implemented in the rural settings of Northeast India with appropriate training programs. Careful case selection is essential during the early stages of the surgical learning curve.

Background: In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO2pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. Methods: A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. Results: 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. Conclusion: Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.

Coverage of cost-effective maternal health services remains poor due to insufficient supply and inadequate demand for these services among the poorest groups. Households pay too great a share of the costs of maternal health services, or do not seek care because they cannot afford the costs. Available evidence creates a strong case for removal of user fees and provision of universal coverage for pregnant women, particularly for delivery care. To be successful, governments must also replenish the income lost through the abolition of user fees. Where insurance schemes exist, maternal health care needs to be included in the benefits package, and careful design is needed to ensure uptake by the poorest people. Voucher schemes should be tested in low-income settings, and their costs and relative cost-effectiveness assessed. Further research is needed on methods to target financial assistance for transport and time costs. Current investment in maternal health is insufficient to meet the fifth Millennium Development Goal (MDG), and much greater resources are needed to scale up coverage of maternal health services and create demand. Existing global estimates are too crude to be of use for domestic planning, since resource requirements will vary; budgets need first to be developed at country-level. Donors need to increase financial contributions for maternal health in low-income countries to help fill the resource gap. Resource tracking at country and donor levels will help hold countries and donors to account for their commitments to achieving the maternal health MDG.

An important feature of the health care system of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and Central and Eastern Europe is the presence of informal or under-the-table payments. It is generally accepted that these represent a significant contribution to the income of medical staff. Discussions with medical practitioners suggest that for certain specialities in certain hospitals a doctor might obtain many times his official income. Yet little empirical work has been done in this area. Informal payments can be divided into those paid to health care providers and those that go directly to practitioners. They can be further divided into monetary and non-monetary. The complexity of these payments make obtaining estimates using quantitative survey techniques difficult. Estimates on contributions to the costs of medicines in Kazakstan suggest that they may add 30% to national health care expenditure. Payments to staff are likely to add substantially to this figure, although few reliable statistics exist. Research in this area is important since informal payment is likely to impact on equity in access to medical care and the efficiency of provision. The impact of attempts to reform systems using Western ideas could be reduced unless account is taken of the effect and size of the informal payment system.