A Systematic Review of the Use of Surgical Checklists in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumour.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancers Pub Date : 2024-10-27 DOI:10.3390/cancers16213626
Abram Botros, Paul M Rival, Ian D Davis, Shomik Sengupta
{"title":"A Systematic Review of the Use of Surgical Checklists in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumour.","authors":"Abram Botros, Paul M Rival, Ian D Davis, Shomik Sengupta","doi":"10.3390/cancers16213626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Surgical checklists have previously been shown to improve surgical quality and patient outcomes. However, their use in transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT), one of the most commonly performed urological procedures, has yet to be explored in depth.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effect of surgical checklist implementation in TURBT on documentation quality, specimen quality, and oncological outcomes according to the existing literature. We then hope to develop an optimised TURBT checklist by identifying the most pertinent parameters for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify literature pertaining to the use of surgical checklists in the context of TURBT. A systematic review was then performed on the 41 identified studies, of which six were included in the final analysis.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>We explored three primary outcomes that arose from the literature, namely: (1) comprehensiveness of documentation; (2) resection quality; and (3) recurrence rates and recurrence-free survival (RFS). We found agreement in the literature that surgical checklist implementation does lead to an overall improvement in documentation. The effect of surgical checklists on resection quality and recurrence rates, however, was mixed in the literature, with some studies showing statistically significant improvements and others showing no significant change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are multiple benefits to surgical checklist implementation in TURBT procedures. We propose an optimised 14-item surgical checklist that should be implemented in every TURBT report to ensure sufficient information documentation for risk stratification and post-operative management.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"16 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545027/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16213626","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Surgical checklists have previously been shown to improve surgical quality and patient outcomes. However, their use in transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT), one of the most commonly performed urological procedures, has yet to be explored in depth.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of surgical checklist implementation in TURBT on documentation quality, specimen quality, and oncological outcomes according to the existing literature. We then hope to develop an optimised TURBT checklist by identifying the most pertinent parameters for inclusion.

Evidence acquisition: A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify literature pertaining to the use of surgical checklists in the context of TURBT. A systematic review was then performed on the 41 identified studies, of which six were included in the final analysis.

Evidence synthesis: We explored three primary outcomes that arose from the literature, namely: (1) comprehensiveness of documentation; (2) resection quality; and (3) recurrence rates and recurrence-free survival (RFS). We found agreement in the literature that surgical checklist implementation does lead to an overall improvement in documentation. The effect of surgical checklists on resection quality and recurrence rates, however, was mixed in the literature, with some studies showing statistically significant improvements and others showing no significant change.

Conclusions: There are multiple benefits to surgical checklist implementation in TURBT procedures. We propose an optimised 14-item surgical checklist that should be implemented in every TURBT report to ensure sufficient information documentation for risk stratification and post-operative management.

经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术中使用手术清单的系统性回顾。
背景:手术清单曾被证明可提高手术质量和患者预后。然而,经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(TURBT)是最常用的泌尿外科手术之一,其在经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术中的应用还有待深入探讨:目的:根据现有文献,评估在经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术(TURBT)中实施手术清单对记录质量、标本质量和肿瘤治疗效果的影响。然后,我们希望通过确定最相关的纳入参数来制定优化的 TURBT 核对表:证据获取:我们使用 PubMed 进行了文献检索,以确定在 TURBT 中使用手术清单的相关文献。然后对确定的 41 项研究进行了系统综述,其中 6 项纳入最终分析:我们探讨了文献中出现的三个主要结果,即:(1) 记录的全面性;(2) 切除质量;(3) 复发率和无复发生存率 (RFS)。我们发现文献一致认为,手术清单的实施确实能全面改善记录。然而,文献中关于手术核对表对切除质量和复发率的影响却不尽相同,一些研究显示在统计学上有显著改善,而另一些研究则显示没有显著变化:结论:在 TURBT 手术中实施手术清单有多种益处。我们建议在每份 TURBT 报告中使用 14 项优化手术清单,以确保为风险分层和术后管理提供足够的信息记录。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancers
Cancers Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
5371
审稿时长
18.07 days
期刊介绍: Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信