Search

Background: Discordant practice patterns may be a consequence of evidence-practice gaps or deficiencies in knowledge translation. We examined the current strategies used by hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgeons in Canada for the perioperative management of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Methods: We generated a web-based survey that focused on the perioperative measures surrounding PD. The survey was distributed to all members of the Canadian Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Association. Results: The survey was distributed to 74 surgeons and received a response rate of 50%. Many similarities in surgical techniques were reported; for example, most surgeons (86.5%) reconstruct the pancreas with pancreaticojejunostomy rather than pancreaticogastrostomy. In contrast, variable techniques regarding the use of peritoneal drainage tubes, anastomotic stents, octreotide and other intraoperative modalities were reported. Most surgeons (75.7%) reported that their patients frequently required preoperative biliary drainage, yet there was minimal agreement with the designated criteria. There was variability in postoperative care, including the use of epidural analgesia and timing of postoperative oral nutrition. Conclusion: We identified heterogeneity among Canadian HPB surgeons, suggesting a number of evidence-practice gaps within specific domains of pancreatic resections. Focused research in these areas may facilitate technical agreement and improve patient outcomes following PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic surgery has gained popularity over open conventional surgery as it offers benefits to both patients and health care practitioners. Although the overall risk of complications during laparoscopic surgery is recognized to be lower than during laparotomy, inadvertent serious complications still occur. Creation of the pneumoperitoneum and placement of laparoscopic ports remain a critical first step during endoscopic surgery. It is estimated that up to 50% of laparoscopic complications are entry-related, and most injury-related litigations are trocar-related. We sought to evaluate the current practice of laparoscopic entry among Canadian general surgeons. Methods: We conducted a national survey to identify general surgeon preferences for laparoscopic entry. Specifically, we sought to survey surgeons using the membership database from the Canadian Association of General Surgeons (CAGS) with regards to entry methods, access instruments, port insertion sites and patient safety profiles. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was used as a representative general surgical procedure. Results: The survey was completed by 248 of 1000 (24.8%) registered members of CAGS. Respondents included both community and academic surgeons, with and without formal laparoscopic fellowship training. The demographic profile of respondents was consistent nationally. A substantial proportion of general surgeons (> 80%) prefer the open primary entry technique, use the Hasson trocar and cannula and favour the periumbilical port site, irrespective of patient weight or history of peritoneal adhesions. One-third of surgeons surveyed use Veress needle insufflation in their surgical practices. More than 50% of respondents witnessed complications related to primary laparoscopic trocar insertion. Conclusion: General surgeons in Canada use the open primary entry technique, with the Hasson trocar and cannula applied periumbilically to establish a pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. This surgical approach is remarkably consistent nationally, although considerably variant across other surgical subspecialties. Peritoneal entry remains an important patient safety issue that requires ongoing evaluation and study to ensure translation into safe contemporary clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) to surgically manage ulcerative colitis may involve multiple separate surgical procedures, impacting treatment costs, length of stay in hospital, complication rates and patient outcomes, and there is currently no accepted standard of care regarding the number of stages that should be performed. The purpose of this study was to compare the practice patterns of Canadian and American colorectal surgeons regarding the surgical management of ulcerative colitis. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to all practisng fellows of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) in Canada and the United States. Surgeons were asked to describe their typical practices for 3 clinical scenarios. Results: Questionnaires were mailed to 40 Canadian and 873 American ASCRS fellows with response rates of 86% and 62%, respectively. In the case of a patient who has had a prior colectomy, who is not taking steroids and in whom a tension-free IPAA is possible, 44% of Canadian surgeons would perform IPAA alone and 56% would perform IPAA with a loop ileostomy. In contrast, only 26% of American surgeons would perform IPAA alone and 74% would perform IPAA with a loop ileostomy (p = 0.002). In the case of a patient who has not had previous surgery, who is taking 10 mg/day of prednisone and in whom a tension-free IPAA is possible, the majority of both Canadian and American surgeons would perform an IPAA with a loop ileostomy (93% and 89%, respectively, p = 0.06). In the case of a patient who has not had previous surgery, who is taking 40 mg/day of prednisone and in whom a tension-free IPAA is possible, 45% of Canadian surgeons would perform a subtotal colectomy with an end ileostomy compared with 14% of American surgeons (p < 0.001). Conclusion: There are significant differences in the surgical management of ulcerative colitis between Canadian and American colorectal surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF-PHC) recently revised its screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). We wished to assess the effect of this change on the screening beliefs and clinical practice of primary care physicians. Methods: We surveyed 160 primary-care physicians, quasi-randomly sampled, in June-July 2001 and again in April-July 2002, 9 months after publication of the guidelines. Descriptive statistics and McNemar χ2 analyses were carried out on data from physicians who responded to both surveys. Results: Of the those sampled, 47% responded to both surveys. After the publication of the CTF-PHC guidelines, the proportion reporting that they recommend CRC screening to their patients at average risk increased from 43% to 60% (p = 0.02). Before publication of the revised guidelines 48% stated that the CTF-PHC did not support screening, compared with 24% afterward (p = 0.01). CTF-PHC guidelines were acknowledged by 30% to be a source of CRC screening information. Around 9 months post-publication, 24% of the physiciansstated their awareness of the revised screening guidelines. The most commonly cited reasons for not recommending CRC screening to average-risk patients were that the evidence is inconclusive and thatCTF-PHC guidelines do not support screening. Conclusions: After publication of the revised CTFPHC guidelines more primary-care physicians reported that they recommend CRC screening to their average-risk patients. The belief that the evidence is inconclusive nevertheless remains a considerable barrier to implementation. To increase the use of screening for CRC, additional strategies are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]