Surgical Registrars as Primary Operators Have Acceptable Outcomes for Trauma Laparotomy

Jonathan Ko, Victor Kong, J. Amey, D. Clarke, Damien Ah Yen, G. Christey
{"title":"Surgical Registrars as Primary Operators Have Acceptable Outcomes for Trauma Laparotomy","authors":"Jonathan Ko, Victor Kong, J. Amey, D. Clarke, Damien Ah Yen, G. Christey","doi":"10.3390/traumacare2020017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The literature has suggested that acceptable outcomes in elective general surgery can be achieved with registrars operating but is less clear with trauma surgery. Methods: This was a retrospective study of all laparotomies performed for adult trauma between 2012 and 2020 at a Level 1 Trauma Centre in New Zealand to identify potential differences in clinical outcomes between primary operators. The primary operator of each operation was identified, along with the presence or absence of a consultant and the clinical outcome. Results: During the 9-year study period, a total of 204 trauma laparotomies were performed at Waikato Hospital. The groups of the primary operators were: a registrar with a consultant present (27%), a registrar without a consultant present (22%), a registrar assisting a consultant (48%), and a consultant who operated without a registrar (3%). Direct comparison was made between the three groups where registrars were involved in the laparotomy. There was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes, whether a consultant was present or not. Conclusions: Surgical registrars have acceptable outcomes for trauma laparotomy in the appropriate patients. A consultant surgeon should still operate on patients with more significant physiological derangements.","PeriodicalId":75251,"journal":{"name":"Trauma care (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma care (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare2020017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The literature has suggested that acceptable outcomes in elective general surgery can be achieved with registrars operating but is less clear with trauma surgery. Methods: This was a retrospective study of all laparotomies performed for adult trauma between 2012 and 2020 at a Level 1 Trauma Centre in New Zealand to identify potential differences in clinical outcomes between primary operators. The primary operator of each operation was identified, along with the presence or absence of a consultant and the clinical outcome. Results: During the 9-year study period, a total of 204 trauma laparotomies were performed at Waikato Hospital. The groups of the primary operators were: a registrar with a consultant present (27%), a registrar without a consultant present (22%), a registrar assisting a consultant (48%), and a consultant who operated without a registrar (3%). Direct comparison was made between the three groups where registrars were involved in the laparotomy. There was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes, whether a consultant was present or not. Conclusions: Surgical registrars have acceptable outcomes for trauma laparotomy in the appropriate patients. A consultant surgeon should still operate on patients with more significant physiological derangements.
外科登记员作为主要操作者创伤剖腹手术有可接受的结果
背景:文献表明,在登记员的操作下,选择性普通外科手术可以获得可接受的结果,但对于创伤手术则不太清楚。方法:这是一项回顾性研究,对2012年至2020年在新西兰一级创伤中心进行的所有成人创伤剖腹手术进行研究,以确定主要手术者之间临床结果的潜在差异。确定了每次手术的主要操作者,以及是否有顾问和临床结果。结果:在9年的研究期间,怀卡托医院共进行了204例创伤性剖腹手术。主要运营商分为:有顾问在场的注册商(27%)、没有顾问在场的注册商(22%)、协助顾问的注册商(48%)和在没有注册商的情况下运营的咨询商(3%)。直接比较三组登记员参与剖腹手术的情况。无论是否有咨询师在场,临床结果均无显著差异。结论:外科登记员在适当的患者中对创伤剖腹手术有可接受的结果。会诊外科医生仍应对更严重的生理紊乱患者进行手术。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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