Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2026 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

This site is protected by VikingCloud's Trusted Commerce program
      Home

    British Journal of Surgery

    Subject:
    Surgery
    Publisher:
    BJS Society — Oxford University Press
    ISSN:
    0007-1323
    Scimago Journal Rank:
    210

    2026

    Volume 113
    Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2025

    Volume 113
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 112
    Supplement 17 (Dec)Supplement 16 (Dec)Supplement 15 (Dec)Supplement 14 (Nov)Supplement 13 (Aug)Supplement 12 (Aug)Supplement 11 (Aug)Supplement 10 (Jun)Supplement 9 (May)Supplement 8 (May)Supplement 7 (May)Supplement 6 (Mar)Supplement 5 (Feb)Supplement 4 (Feb)Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2024

    Volume 112
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 111
    Supplement 9 (Nov)Supplement 8 (Sep)Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2023

    Volume 111
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 110
    Supplement 10 (Dec)Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)

    2022

    Volume 110
    Issue 9 (Dec)Issue 8 (Dec)Issue 7 (Nov)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 109
    Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jun)Issue 9 (May)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Mar)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)

    2021

    Volume 109
    Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 108
    Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Oct)Supplement 5 (Jul)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (May)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Mar)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2020

    Volume 108
    Issue 6 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 107
    Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Sep)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jun)Issue 8 (Apr)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Feb)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2019

    Volume 106
    Supplement 7 (Nov)Supplement 6 (Sep)Supplement 5 (Sep)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2018

    Volume 105
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2017

    Volume 104
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2016

    Volume 103
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Jul)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Aug)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2015

    Volume 102
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (May)Supplement 5 (Apr)Supplement 4 (Mar)Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Feb)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2014

    Volume 102
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 101
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Feb)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2013

    Volume 100
    Supplement 8 (Sep)Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2012

    Volume 99
    Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Feb)Supplement 2 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2011

    Volume 99
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 98
    Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (Apr)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2010

    Volume 98
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 97
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Dec)Supplement 4 (Jun)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2009

    Volume 96
    Supplement 6 (Oct)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2008

    Volume 95
    Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (May)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2007

    Volume 94
    Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 3 (Jul)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2006

    Volume 93
    Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 4
    Issue 14 (Mar)

    2005

    Volume 92
    Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 80
    Issue 3 (Dec)
    Volume 68
    Issue 10 (Dec)
    Volume 67
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 66
    Issue 4 (Dec)
    Volume 64
    Issue 7 (Dec)
    Volume 61
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 60
    Issue 5 (Dec)

    2004

    Volume 91
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2003

    Volume 90
    Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2002

    Volume 89
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Dec)Issue 10 (Nov)Issue 9 (Nov)Issue 8 (Nov)Issue 7 (Nov)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 88
    Issue 3 (Dec)

    2001

    Volume 88
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2000

    Volume 87
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1999

    Volume 86
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1998

    Volume 85
    Supplement 2 (Jul)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1997

    Volume 84
    Supplement 2 (Jun)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1996

    Volume 83
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1995

    Volume 82
    Supplement 1 (Nov)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1994

    Volume 81
    Supplement 1 (Oct)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1993

    Volume 80
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1992

    Volume 79
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1991

    Volume 78
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1990

    Volume 77
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1989

    Volume 76
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1988

    Volume 75
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1987

    Volume 74
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1986

    Volume 73
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1985

    Volume 72
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1984

    Volume 71
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1983

    Volume 70
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1982

    Volume 69
    Supplement 6 (Dec)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1981

    Volume 68
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1980

    Volume 67
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1979

    Volume 66
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1978

    Volume 65
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1977

    Volume 64
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1976

    Volume 63
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1975

    Volume 62
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1974

    Volume 61
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1973

    Volume 60
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1972

    Volume 59
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1971

    Volume 58
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1970

    Volume 57
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1969

    Volume 56
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1968

    Volume 55
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1967

    Volume 54
    Issue 13 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1966

    Volume 53
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1965

    Volume 52
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1964

    Volume 51
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1963

    Volume 50
    Issue 227 (Nov)Issue 226 (Sep)Issue 225 (Jul)Issue 224 (May)Issue 223 (Mar)Issue 222 (Jan)

    1962

    Volume 50
    Issue 221 (Nov)Issue 220 (Sep)Issue 219 (Jul)
    Volume 49
    Issue 218 (May)Issue 217 (Mar)

    1961

    Volume 49
    Issue 216 (Dec)Issue 215 (Nov)Issue 214 (Sep)Issue 213 (Jul)
    Volume 48
    Issue 212 (May)Issue 211 (Mar)Issue 210 (Jan)

    1960

    Volume 48
    Issue 209 (Nov)Issue 208 (Sep)Issue 207 (Jul)
    Volume 47
    Issue 206 (May)Issue 205 (Mar)Issue 204 (Jan)

    1959

    Volume 47
    Issue 203 (Nov)Issue 202 (Sep)Issue 201 (Jul)
    Volume 46
    Issue 200 (May)Issue 199 (Mar)Issue 198 (Jan)

    1958

    Volume 46
    Issue 197 (Nov)Issue 196 (Sep)Issue 195 (Jul)
    Volume 45
    Issue 194 (May)Issue 193 (Mar)Issue 192 (Jan)

    1957

    Volume 45
    Issue 191 (Nov)Issue 190 (Sep)Issue 189 (Jul)
    Volume 44
    Issue 188 (May)Issue 187 (Mar)Issue 186 (Jan)

    1956

    Volume 44
    Issue 185 (Nov)Issue 184 (Sep)Issue 183 (Jul)
    Volume 43
    Issue 182 (May)Issue 181 (Mar)Issue 180 (Jan)

    1955

    Volume 43
    Issue 179 (Nov)Issue 178 (Sep)Issue 177 (Jul)
    Volume 42
    Issue 176 (May)Issue 175 (Mar)Issue 174 (Jan)

    1954

    Volume 42
    Issue 173 (Nov)Issue 172 (Sep)Issue 171 (Jul)
    Volume 41
    Issue 170 (May)Issue 169 (Mar)Issue 168 (Jan)

    1953

    Volume 41
    Issue 167 (Nov)Issue 166 (Sep)Issue 165 (Jul)
    Volume 40
    Issue 164 (May)Issue 163 (Mar)Issue 162 (Jan)

    1952

    Volume 40
    Issue 161 (Nov)Issue 160 (Sep)Issue 159 (Jul)
    Volume 39
    Issue 158 (May)Issue 157 (Mar)Issue 156 (Jan)

    1951

    Volume 39
    Issue 155 (Nov)Issue 154 (Sep)Issue 153 (Jul)
    Volume 38
    Issue 152 (Apr)Issue 151 (Jan)

    1950

    Volume 38
    Issue 150 (Oct)Issue 149 (Jul)
    Volume 37
    Issue 148 (Apr)Issue 147 (Jan)

    1949

    Volume 37
    Issue 146 (Oct)Issue 145 (Jul)
    Volume 36
    Issue 144 (Apr)Issue 143 (Jan)

    1948

    Volume 36
    Issue 142 (Oct)Issue 141 (Jul)
    Volume 35
    Issue 140 (Apr)Issue 139 (Jan)

    1947

    Volume 35
    Issue 138 (Oct)Issue 137 (Jul)
    Volume 34
    Issue 136 (Apr)Issue 135 (Jan)

    1946

    Volume 34
    Issue 134 (Oct)Issue 133 (Jul)
    Volume 33
    Issue 132 (Apr)Issue 131 (Jan)

    1945

    Volume 33
    Issue 130 (Oct)Issue 129 (Jul)
    Volume 32
    Issue 128 (Apr)Issue 127 (Jan)

    1944

    Volume 32
    Issue 126 (Oct)Issue 125 (Jul)
    Volume 31
    Issue 124 (Apr)Issue 123 (Jan)

    1943

    Volume 31
    Issue 122 (Oct)Issue 121 (Jul)
    Volume 30
    Issue 120 (Apr)Issue 119 (Jan)

    1942

    Volume 30
    Issue 118 (Oct)Issue 117 (Jul)
    Volume 29
    Issue 116 (Apr)Issue 115 (Jan)

    1941

    Volume 29
    Issue 114 (Oct)Issue 113 (Jul)
    Volume 28
    Issue 112 (Apr)Issue 111 (Jan)

    1940

    Volume 28
    Issue 110 (Oct)Issue 109 (Jul)
    Volume 27
    Issue 108 (Apr)Issue 107 (Jan)

    1939

    Volume 27
    Issue 106 (Oct)Issue 105 (Jul)
    Volume 26
    Issue 104 (Apr)Issue 103 (Jan)

    1938

    Volume 26
    Issue 102 (Oct)Issue 101 (Jul)
    Volume 25
    Issue 100 (Apr)Issue 99 (Jan)

    1937

    Volume 25
    Issue 98 (Oct)Issue 97 (Jul)
    Volume 24
    Issue 96 (Apr)Issue 95 (Jan)

    1936

    Volume 24
    Issue 94 (Oct)Issue 93 (Jul)
    Volume 23
    Issue 92 (Apr)Issue 91 (Jan)

    1935

    Volume 23
    Issue 90 (Oct)Issue 89 (Jul)
    Volume 22
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 88 (Apr)Issue 87 (Jan)

    1934

    Volume 22
    Issue 86 (Oct)Issue 85 (Jul)
    Volume 21
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 84 (Apr)Issue 83 (Jan)

    1933

    Volume 21
    Issue 82 (Oct)Issue 81 (Jul)
    Volume 20
    Supplement 32 (Apr)Supplement 31 (Apr)Supplement 30 (Apr)Supplement 29 (Apr)Issue 80 (Apr)Issue 79 (Jan)

    1932

    Volume 20
    Issue 78 (Oct)Issue 77 (Jul)
    Volume 19
    Issue 76 (Apr)Issue 75 (Jan)

    1931

    Volume 19
    Supplement 28 (Jan)Supplement 27 (Jan)Supplement 26 (Jan)Supplement 25 (Jan)Issue 74 (Oct)Issue 73 (Jul)
    Volume 18
    Supplement 24 (Jan)Supplement 23 (Jan)Supplement 22 (Jan)Supplement 21 (Jan)Issue 72 (Apr)Issue 71 (Jan)

    1930

    Volume 18
    Issue 70 (Oct)Issue 69 (Jul)
    Volume 17
    Supplement 20 (Jan)Supplement 19 (Jan)Issue 68 (Apr)Issue 67 (Jan)

    1929

    Volume 17
    Supplement 18 (Oct)Supplement 17 (Jan)Issue 66 (Oct)Issue 65 (Jul)
    Volume 16
    Supplement 16 (Jan)Supplement 15 (Jan)Supplement 14 (Jan)Supplement 13 (Jul)Issue 64 (Apr)Issue 63 (Jan)

    1928

    Volume 16
    Issue 62 (Oct)Issue 61 (Jul)
    Volume 15
    Issue 60 (Apr)Issue 59 (Jan)

    1927

    Volume 15
    Issue 58 (Oct)Issue 57 (Jul)
    Volume 14
    Supplement 8 (Apr)Supplement 7 (Apr)Supplement 6 (Apr)Supplement 5 (Apr)Issue 56 (Apr)Issue 55 (Jan)

    1926

    Volume 14
    Issue 54 (Oct)Issue 53 (Jul)
    Volume 13
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 52 (Apr)Issue 51 (Jan)

    1925

    Volume 13
    Issue 50 (Oct)Issue 49 (Jul)
    Volume 12
    Issue 48 (Apr)Issue 47 (Jan)

    1924

    Volume 12
    Issue 46 (Oct)Issue 45 (Jul)
    Volume 11
    Issue 44 (Apr)Issue 43 (Jan)

    1923

    Volume 11
    Issue 42 (Oct)Issue 41 (Jul)
    Volume 10
    Issue 40 (Apr)Issue 39 (Jan)

    1922

    Volume 10
    Issue 38 (Oct)Issue 37 (Jul)
    Volume 9
    Issue 36 (Jan)Issue 35 (Jul)

    1921

    Volume 9
    Issue 34 (Jan)Issue 33 (Jul)

    1920

    Volume 8
    Issue 32 (Jan)Issue 31 (Jan)Issue 30 (Jan)Issue 29 (Jul)

    1919

    Volume 7
    Issue 28 (Jan)Issue 27 (Jan)Issue 26 (Jan)Issue 25 (Jul)

    1918

    Volume 6
    Issue 24 (Jan)Issue 23 (Jan)Issue 22 (Jan)Issue 21 (Jul)

    1917

    Volume 5
    Issue 20 (Jan)Issue 19 (Jan)Issue 18 (Jan)Issue 17 (Jul)

    1916

    Volume 4
    Issue 16 (Jan)Issue 15 (Jan)Issue 14 (Jan)Issue 13 (Jan)

    1915

    Volume 3
    Issue 12 (Jan)Issue 11 (Jan)Issue 10 (Jan)Issue 9 (Jan)

    1914

    Volume 2
    Issue 8 (Jan)Issue 7 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jan)Issue 5 (Jul)

    1913

    Volume 1
    Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jul)

    0020

    Volume 106
    January
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    1278 MANELS: A Retrospective, Multi-National, Longitudinal Study for Quantitative Analysis of Gender Distribution in Speakers at Major Pan-Specialty Surgical Conferences

    Burton, O; Georgi, M; Asif, A; Fricker, M; Patel, S; Raja, A K; Gargan, A; Gargan, K; Lee, K; Kamboj, R; Thamilmaran, A; Leung, K H C; Abdi, Z; Haque, S; Tse, F; Moore, C; Nathan, A

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.778pmid: N/A

    AimAlthough the proportion of female medical students worldwide is increasing, only an estimated 35% of UK surgical trainees are female, and only 14% of consultant surgeons – these statistics are similar globally. This study aims to quantify the gender distribution in invited speakers and panellists at international pan-specialty surgical conferences in recent years.MethodRetrospective analysis of annual meetings organised by 5 international surgical organizations between January 2016 and December 2021 was conducted. Male and female faculty were academically stratified according to mean publications, citations, and H-index. A manel was defined as a session with ≥ 2 speakers, all of whom are men. Sex was determined by specific speaker title in conference program, online autobiography, or Gender Balance Assessment Tool (GBAT).ResultsBetween 22 conferences, there were 1978 invited speakers, of which 25.6% (n = 506) were female. Of the included 74 panel sessions, 48.6% (n = 36) were manels. When considering the gender of invited lecture speakers, there was no significant difference in their mean H-indices (M = 33.4, F = 27.8, p = 0.063) or mean total publications (M = 205.6, F = 169.9). Male invited lecturers had a significantly higher number of citations (M = 7944.7, F = 4211.7, p = 0.025). There was a significant decrease in the proportion of manels between 2016 and 2021 (p = 0.01).ConclusionsDespite the increasing representation of women in surgery, only one quarter of invited speakers were female and almost half of panels with two or more speakers were manels despite no difference in speaker H-index or publications. This study highlights the need for new strategies and concerted efforts to increase female representation at surgical conferences.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    719 Barriers and Facilitators Towards People Experiencing Homelessness When Accessing Surgical Care: A Critical Review of the Literature

    Javed, M; Manchip, G; Chiara Corriero, A; Limbu, T; Wellington, J

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.038pmid: N/A

    AimPeople experiencing homelessness (PEH) are a vulnerable group in which physical health morbidities are much more common than the general population. Despite this, the inability to access healthcare remains a main concern. This literature review aims to identify the barriers and facilitators PEH face towards accessing safe surgical care, and to provide actionable strategies.MethodA literature search was carried out on multiple databases. Thematic analysis of the included papers identified themes relating to barriers, facilitators, and actionable strategies.ResultTwelve papers were identified. Eleven themes related to barriers and facilitators were identified and five for actionable strategies. The themes related to barriers included access to community care, fragmented follow-up care, transportation, lack of recovery shelters, infections, and post-operative complications. Themes related to facilitators included street medicine programmes and the utilisation of patient navigators. Actionable strategies identified for health workers included the improvement of education, enhancing existing social safety nets, improved screening, tailoring discharge and surgical plans with the view of unfeasible follow up.ConclusionsCurrent papers are not based on UK data and there are limited data sources available. However, analysis of the available data has shown many barriers and limited facilitators towards surgical care, highlighting the need for further studies. With a rising population of PEH in the UK these findings highlight the need for further research to create strategies that allow for safe surgical care in this population.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    453 The Optimal Timing of Colectomy for Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis

    Ryan, E; Tyrrell-Price, J; Phillips, J

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.421pmid: N/A

    AimAcute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a medical emergency which, if left untreated, can be fatal. Some cases require colectomy. The timing of this operation is important to reduce post-operative morbidity. The primary study aim is to assess whether the timing of this operation impacts upon post-operative outcome. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether pre-operative blood albumin level may be able to predict post-operative complication rates.MethodAll patients who underwent colectomy and ileostomy formation for ASUC at Bristol Royal Infirmary between 2010-2020 were identified. Patient demographic information, duration of pre-operative hospital stays, blood results and post-operative complications up until the most recent follow up were recorded. Patients undergoing elective colectomy for ulcerative colitis were analysed separately.ResultsTwenty-one ASUC admissions were identified who were all treated with intravenous steroids for a median of 9 (range 1-18) days before colectomy. 16 patients (76%) received either ciclosporin or infliximab rescue therapies. Median admission CRP was 41 (range 4-231). Median admission blood albumin was 29 (range 16-38). <30-day and >30-day post-operative complication rates were 52% (11/21) and 25% (5/20) respectively.ConclusionsPrevious literature shows significant association between the length of pre-operative medical therapy and post-operative complications. Surgeons can learn from them, so far, negative findings of our study. A surgeon’s own clinical judgement is the most important factor in the decision of when to take an ASUC patient to theatre. Biomarkers can aid a decision but cannot be used as a solitary justifier for the timing of colectomy.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    396 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing the Rate of Post Operative Periprosthetic Fracture Following Hip Arthroplasty with a Polished Taper Slip Versus Composite Beam Stem

    Feathers, J; Mabrouk, A; Mahmood, A; West, R; Pandit, H; Lamb, J

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.031pmid: N/A

    AimTo compare the incidence of post-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures (POPFF) following hip replacement with either a cemented polished taper stem (PTS) or cemented composite beam stem (CB) in comparative studies.MethodA systematic review of comparative studies, written in English, and published in peer-reviewed journals since year 2000 to 2021 was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Methodology followed the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Cohorts were classified as high or low risk of POPFF based on patient risk factors. Metanalysis was performed using a random effects model and relative incidence with 95% confidence intervals were reported.ResultsThe overall study quality was good. 913,021 patients from 18 cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. 294,540 patients received a CB stem and 618,481 received a PTS stem. For patients at low risk of POPFF the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 3.14 (CI: 2.48, 3.98) for the PTS group versus CB group. For patients at high risk of POPFF the IRR of 9.87 (CI: 3.63, 26.80) for the PTS group versus the CB group.ConclusionsThe risk of POPFF is lower when hip arthroplasty was performed using a composite beam stem versus a polished taper slip stem. This protective effect was greatest in patients with a higher risk of POPFF. Surgeons should consider the effect of cemented stem choice on risk of subsequent periprosthetic femur fracture, particularly in frail or elderly patients at risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    827 Greenlight Laser Prostatectomy: A Safe and Effective Day Case Option for Bladder Outlet Obstruction in the Elderly Population

    Weight, G; Tsoi, H

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.733pmid: N/A

    AimGreenlight-laser prostatectomy (GLLP) is becoming a popular treatment option for bladder outlet obstruction. In this retrospective study, we aim to explore the patient selection, perioperative morbidity, and functional outcomes of GLLP.MethodPatients who underwent GLLP at a UK tertiary centre between June 2018 and November 2021 were included in this study. Retrospective data covering patient demographics, perioperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were collected using the electronic records systems.Results305 patients were included in this study with a median age of 74 (range 30-90) years. The most common indication (62.6%) for the procedure was patient’s wish to be free from long-term catheters (LTC) or intermittent catheterisation (ISC), followed by failed medical therapy for LUTS (36.4%). 84.6% of patients had an ASA ≥2, and 32.1% took anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Inpatient stays were minimal, with the majority (68.2%) of patients were performed as day case, and 21.3% of patients discharged on the next day. The 3-month readmission rate was 10.8%, with the most common causes being haematuria and urinary-tract infection. The successful TWOC rate at follow up was 91.2%. Amongst the 19 patients who failed TWOC, 14 had LTC prior to the procedure and 4 had been performing ISC.ConclusionsOur study shows that GLLP is a safe and effective day case treatment, and that with appropriate anaesthetic input it can be suitable for elderly and comorbid patients. Patients requiring LTC or ISC pre-operatively should be counselled carefully about the risk of not being catheter-free post procedure.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    1062 Opioid Requirements During Rehabilitation After Pelvic Fracture

    Zhang, J; Stevenson, A; Lu, V; Zhou, A; Bradshaw, F; Duchniewicz, M; Krkovic, M

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.691pmid: N/A

    AimPelvic fractures are highly traumatic and debilitating injuries for patients, with an arduous rehabilitation process. Our study analyses the predictors for opioid requirements in pelvic fractures.MethodData was collected from all pelvic fractures treated at a Major Trauma Centre from 2015-2021, including fracture location, demographics, and comorbidities. Opioid prescriptions in the first post-injury year were calculated every month up to 6 months, and then from the 7th-12th month period. We calculated the total strength in Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME), and days with at least one opioid prescribed (“coverage”). Multivariate regression was performed on the outcomes.ResultsA total of 3137 patients with pelvic fractures were included, with mean 954 MME (95%, CI = 899-999) in the first year. Acetabulum fractures showed lower strength in the 1st, and 7–12-month periods, with lower coverage in the 1st- 3rd months (p<0.05). Pubis fractures needed higher strength opioids for more days across all time intervals (p<0.01). On multivariate comorbidity analysis, in every subinterval after 1st month and overall, higher BMI and age, pulmonary disease, and drug abuse were associated with higher strength. In every subinterval after 4th month and overall, liver disease was associated with higher strength (p<0.05). Higher age and BMI were associated with increased coverage overall and every individual month (p<0.01), with chronic kidney disease and rheumatological conditions associated with increased coverage after the 2nd month (p<0.05).ConclusionsOur study highlights the various injury, demographic and comorbidity factors that predispose patients to requiring higher strength and coverage of opioids during their rehabilitation from pelvic fractures.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    624 Medication Cessation Post-TURP: Are We Getting It Right?

    Guven, T; Gillams, K; Pignatari, R; Aldesouki, A; Beck, R

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.725pmid: N/A

    AimMost patients who have a TURP should be advised to discontinue medication for bladder outflow obstruction secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) after their surgery. This closed loop QIP audited whether this was the case, presented the findings to the department and re-audited to see whether there had been a decrease in continuing unnecessary post-TURP medication.MethodThe QIP began in October 2020 with a retrospective review of 50 patients that underwent a TURP at a large district general hospital. Patient records were reviewed to ascertain if patients were taking alpha-blockers (ABs) or 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) pre-operatively, and if these were discontinued post-procedure. Any instruction to continue medication post-operatively was noted in the data collection.This data was presented at a departmental research and audit meeting. The second QIP cycle used the same data collection methodology for the subsequent 50 patients who underwent a TURP (June 2021).ResultsThe presentation resulted in a statistically significant decrease in unclear documentation 30% to 10% (p = .0124). Although there was an increase medication discontinuation post-TURP (27.3% to 48%) this wasn’t statistically significant (p = .246). The percentage of patients who were continued on an AB or 5ARI post-op without documentation decreased from 63.3% to 48%, but this change was also not statistically significant (p = .384).ConclusionsSimple departmental audits help improve patient safety through clearer documentation and presentation of new literature. It would be beneficial to produce clear guidelines to patients and their primary care physicians to advise to discontinue BPH medication TURP unless otherwise advised by the urologist.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    1263 Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Risk Assessment and Thromboprophylaxis Among Hospitalised Patients: A Single-Centre Closed Loop Audit

    Quek, F F; Cyclewala, S; Smith, J

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.549pmid: N/A

    AimWith an estimated incidence rate of 1 to 2 cases per 1,000 population, venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom. It is reported that VTE is responsible for approximately 60,000 deaths per annum. Furthermore, VTE has a huge financial impact on the NHS. It is reported that VTE treatment costs the NHS approximately £640 million every year.Notably, at least two-thirds of hospital-acquired VTE are preventable. NICE guideline recommends that all patients should be risk-assessed on admission and re-assessed at the point of consultant review [NG89]. The purpose of this closed-loop audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of simple interventions in improving the efficiency of VTE risk assessments at a large teaching hospital.MethodResults from the first cycle were analysed and interventions were implemented with the aim to improve the standard of practice. These include the utilisation of technology in VTE risk assessments, mandatory teaching sessions and the development of prompts within clerking proformas. A repeat audit was subsequently performed to re-assess the new standard of practice and the effectiveness of these interventions.ResultsOur VTE risk assessment completion rates increased substantially from 16.67% to 100% and the median time taken to complete VTE risk re-assessments also improved notably from 97 to 21 hours. Positive feedbacks have been received on the effectiveness of these interventions.ConclusionsBy implementing these simple interventions, we can see a substantial improvement in the standards of VTE risk assessments, in compliance with the NHS Standard Contract and NICE guidelines.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    643 A Review of the Screening Protocols Investigating Intracranial Aneurysms in Polycystic Kidney Disease

    Abualnaja, S; Rehman, U; McKenna, G

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.440pmid: N/A

    AimIntracranial aneurysms (ICA) are a common complication of polycystic kidney disease (PKD). Due to the lack of screening protocols that exist for PKD patients, without the appropriate preventative measures ICA rupture leads to significant morbidity and mortality. The aim is to analyse existing screening protocols by referencing the lead time between ICA diagnosis and rupture in PKD patients, the purpose and importance of screening, the types of imaging modalities used, and patient outcomes. We will also consider cost-effectiveness and its relation in establishing a screening protocol.MethodA literature search was conducted in April 2022 for articles published between 1990-2022 with special interest in ICA, PKD, and screening protocols. Only exclusion criteria were patients who were diagnosed with PKD <30 years of age. An independent reviewer screened the relevant full papers prior to inclusion.ResultsOur findings suggest that if a PKD presents with either a positive family history of ICA and/or cerebrovascular events and/or is above 40 years of age, then they should have a magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scan every 5 years to monitor ICA development with annual follow-ups. This will significantly decrease patient morbidity and mortality in PKD positive patients.ConclusionsWhile there is significant evidence proving that screening protocols decrease the morbidity and mortality of PKD patients, none have been suggested. The screening protocol suggested in this review should be used as a guideline for future studies that will try and establish a national or international guidelines that can be used by nephrologists and neurosurgeons worldwide.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    404 Imaging for Plastic Surgery Trauma Referrals – Does It Reduce Unnecessary on the Day Patient Transfers?

    Drury, D

    2023 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad258.472pmid: N/A

    AimTo determine whether requesting images for plastic surgery trauma referrals reduced the number of patients transferred to hospital for on the day assessment and management.MethodTwo data collection periods between 31/08/22 - 18/09/22 (round 1) and 24/10/22 – 17/11/22 (round 2) were undertaken. For round one on call plastic surgery SHOs were asked to keep track of all trauma referrals outside of their base hospital which they accepted for on the day review. Once the patient had been reviewed SHOs were asked whether they felt the patient required on the day management or if the patient could have been safely triaged to be seen the following day. During round two SHOs were additionally asked to request images from the referrer were able and to note whether this altered or confirmed their initial management plan.ResultsRound one: 15 patients were transferred for on the day review with 80% deemed as requiring on the day management whilst 20% did not. Round two: 13 patients were transferred for on the day review with 92% deemed as requiring on the day management whilst 8% did not. Images were sent for 9 patients, altered the initial decision in three cases and confirmed the initial management in 6.ConclusionsRequesting images for plastic trauma referrals can reduce the number of patients unnecessarily seen on the day, reducing patient stress, and making better use of hospital resources.

    Showing 1 to 10 of 778 Articles

    Previous12345…78Next
    Articles per page
    Browse All Journals

    Related Journals:

    Annals of SurgeryPlastic and Reconstructive SurgeryJAMA SurgerySurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional TechniquesWorld Journal of SurgeryAnnals of Plastic SurgeryLangenbeck's Archives of SurgeryAesthetic Plastic SurgeryFacial Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic MedicineMicrosurgery