<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Patient Safety in Surgery - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Patient Safety in Surgery</description>
        <dc:date>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/25" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/26" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/24" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/4/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/2/1/10" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/4/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/2/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/15" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/14" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/11" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/25">
        <title>Improving operating room safety</title>
        <description>Despite the introduction of the Universal Protocol, patient safety in surgery remains a daily challenge in the operating room. This present study describes one community health system&apos;s efforts to improve operating room safety through human factors training and ultimately the development of a surgical checklist. Using a combination of formal training, local studies documenting operating room safety issues and peer to peer mentoring we were able to substantially change the culture of our operating room. Our efforts have prepared us for successfully implementing a standardized checklist to improve operating room safety throughout our entire system. Based on these findings we recommend a multimodal approach to improving operating room safety.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/25</link>
                <dc:creator>Scott Hurlbert</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jill Garrett</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2009, 3:25</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-25</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>25</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/26">
        <title>Clarifying &quot;never events&quot; and introducing &quot;always events&quot;</title>
        <description>No description available</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/26</link>
                <dc:creator>Alan Lembitz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ted Clarke</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2009, 3:26</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-31T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-26</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>26</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-31T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/24">
        <title>Is the intraosseous access route fast and efficacious compared to conventional central venous catheterization in adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department? A prospective observational pilot study</title>
        <description>Background:
For patients&apos; safety reasons, current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines recommend intraosseous (IO) vascular access as an alternative in cases of emergency, if prompt venous catheterization is impossible. The purpose of this study was to compare the IO access as a bridging procedure versus central venous catheterization (CVC) for in-hospital adult emergency patients under resuscitation with impossible peripheral intravenous (IV) access. We hypothesised, that CVC is faster and more efficacious compared to IO access.
Methods:
A prospective observational study comparing success rates and procedure times of IO access (EZ-IO, Vidacare Corporation) versus CVC in adult (&#8805;18 years of age) patients under trauma and medical resuscitation admitted to our emergency department with impossible peripheral IV catheterization was conducted. Procedure time was defined from preparation and insertion of vascular access type until first drug or infusion solution administration. Success rate on first attempt and procedure time for each access route was evaluated and statistically tested.
Results:
Ten consecutive adult patients under resuscitation, each receiving IO access and CVC, were analyzed. IO access was performed with 10 tibial or humeral insertions, CVC in 10 internal jugular or subclavian veins. The success rate on first attempt was 90% for IO insertion versus 60% for CVC. Mean procedure time was significantly lower for IO cannulation (2.3 min &#177; 0.8) compared to CVC (9.9 min &#177; 3.7) (p &lt; 0.001). As for complications, failure of IO access was observed in one patient, while two or more attempts of CVC were necessary in four patients. No other relevant complications, like infection, bleeding or pneumothorax were observed.
Conclusion:
Preliminary data demonstrate that IO access is a reliable bridging method to gain vascular access for in-hospital adult emergency patients under trauma or medical resuscitation with impossible peripheral IV access. Furthermore, IO cannulation requires significantly less time to enable administration of drugs or infusion solutions compared to CVC. Because CVC was slower and less efficacious, IO access may improve the safety of adult patients under resuscitation in the emergency department.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/24</link>
                <dc:creator>Bernd Leidel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Chlodwig Kirchhoff</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Viktoria Bogner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Julia Stegmaier</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Wolf Mutschler</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karl-Georg Kanz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Volker Braunstein</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2009, 3:24</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-08T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-24</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>24</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-08T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/4/1/2">
        <title>Safety and reliability of Radio Frequency Identification Devices in Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography</title>
        <description>Background:
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) devices are becoming more and more essential for patient safety in hospitals. The purpose of this study was to determine patient safety, data reliability and signal loss wearing on skin RFID devices during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scanning.
Methods:
Sixty RFID tags of the type I-Code SLI, 13.56 MHz, ISO 18000-3.1 were tested: Thirty type 1, an RFID tag with a 76 &#215; 45 mm aluminum-etched antenna and 30 type 2, a tag with a 31 &#215; 14 mm copper-etched antenna. The signal loss, material movement and heat tests were performed in a 1.5 T and a 3 T MR system. For data integrity, the tags were tested additionally during CT scanning. Standardized function tests were performed with all transponders before and after all imaging studies.
Results:
There was no memory loss or data alteration in the RFID tags after MRI and CT scanning. Concerning heating (a maximum of 3.6&#176;C) and device movement (below 1 N/kg) no relevant influence was found. Concerning signal loss (artifacts 2 - 4 mm), interpretability of MR images was impaired when superficial structures such as skin, subcutaneous tissues or tendons were assessed.
Conclusions:
Patients wearing RFID wristbands are safe in 1.5 T and 3 T MR scanners using normal operation mode for RF-field. The findings are specific to the RFID tags that underwent testing.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/4/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Thomas Steffen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Roger Luchinger</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Simon Wildermuth</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christian Kern</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christian Fretz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jochen Lange</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Frank Hetzer</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2010, 4:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-02T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-4-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-02T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/2/1/10">
        <title>Alcohol based surgical prep solution and the risk of fire in the operating room: a case report</title>
        <description>A few cases of fire in the operating room are reported in the literature. The factors that may initiate these fires are many and include alcohol based surgical prep solutions, electrosurgical equipment, flammable drapes etc. We are reporting a case of fire in the operating room while operating on a patient with burst fracture C6 vertebra with quadriplegia. The cause of the fire was due to incomplete drying of the covering drapes with an alcohol based surgical prep solution. This paper discusses potential preventive measures to minimize the incidence of fire in the operating room.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/2/1/10</link>
                <dc:creator>Sumit Batra</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rajiv Gupta</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2008, 2:10</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-04-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-2-10</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-04-26T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/4/1/3">
        <title>Femoral neck fracture during physical therapy following surface replacement arthroplasty: A preventable complication? </title>
        <description>This case report describes two cases of peri-prosthetic fracture during physical therapy in patients who underwent a hip resurfacing, or surface replacement arthroplasty. The fractures occurred with forceful passive combined flexion and external rotation. Functional results were ultimately obtained in both cases, requiring conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Recognizing patient risk factors and cautioning therapists about the possibility of fracture may have prevented these complications.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/4/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Timothy Judkins</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michael Dayton</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2010, 4:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-4-3</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/2/1/2">
        <title>Complications and safety aspects of kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a prospective follow-up study in 102 consecutive patients</title>
        <description>Background:
Kyphoplasty represents an established minimal-invasive method for correction and augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Reliable data on perioperative and postoperative complications are lacking in the literature. The present study was designed to evaluate the incidence and patterns of perioperative complications in order to determine the safety of this procedure for patients undergoing kyphoplasty.Patients and MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 102 consecutive patients (82 women and 20 men; mean age 69) with 135 operatively treated fractured vertebrae who underwent a kyphoplasty between January 2004 to June 2006. Clinical and radiological follow-up was performed for up 6 months after surgery.
Results:
Preoperative pain levels, as determined by the visual analogous scale (VAS) were 7.5 +/- 1.3. Postoperative pain levels were significantly reduced at day 1 after surgery (VAS 2.3 +/- 2.2) and at 6-month follow-up (VAS 1.4 +/- 0.9). Fresh vertebral fractures at adjacent levels were detected radiographically in 8 patients within 6 months. Two patients had a loss of reduction with subsequent sintering of the operated vertebrae and secondary spinal stenosis. Accidental cement extravasation was detected in 7 patients in the intraoperative radiographs. One patient developed a postoperative infected spondylitis at the operated level, which was treated by anterior corporectomy and 360 degrees fusion. Another patient developed a superficial wound infection which required surgical revision. Postoperative bleeding resulting in a subcutaneous haematoma evacuation was seen in one patient.
Conclusion:
The data from the present study imply that percutaneous kyphoplasty can be associated with severe intra- and postoperative complications. This minimal-invasive surgical procedure should therefore be performed exclusively by spine surgeons who have the capability of managing perioperative complications.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/2/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Yohan Robinson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sven Kevin Tschoeke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Philip Stahel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ralph Kayser</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christoph Heyde</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2008, 2:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-01-15T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-2-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-01-15T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/15">
        <title>Spine imaging after lumbar disc replacement: pitfalls and current recommendations</title>
        <description>Background:
Most lumbar artificial discs are still composed of stainless steel alloys, which prevents adequate postoperative diagnostic imaging of the operated region when using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Thus patients with postoperative radicular symptoms or claudication after stainless steel implants often require alternative diagnostic procedures.
Methods:
Possible complications of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) are reviewed from the available literature and imaging recommendations given with regard to implant type. Two illustrative cases are presented in figures.
Results:
Access-related complications, infections, implant wear, loosening or fracture, polyethylene inlay dislodgement, facet joint hypertrophy, central stenosis, and ankylosis of the operated segment can be visualised both in titanium and stainless steel implants, but require different imaging modalities due to magnetic artifacts in MRI.
Conclusion:
Alternative radiographic procedures should be considered when evaluating patients following TDR. Postoperative complications following lumbar TDR including spinal stenosis causing radiculopathy and implant loosening can be visualised by myelography and radionucleotide techniques as an adjunct to plain film radiographs. Even in the presence of massive stainless steel TDR implants lumbar radicular stenosis and implant loosening can be visualised if myelography and radionuclide techniques are applied.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/15</link>
                <dc:creator>Yohan Robinson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bengt Sanden</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2009, 3:15</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-15</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/14">
        <title>The 5th anniversary of the &quot;Universal Protocol&quot;: pitfalls and pearls revisited</title>
        <description>The publication date of this editorial marks the 5th anniversary of the &quot;Universal Protocol&quot; which became a mandatory quality standard introduced by the Joint Commission on July 1, 2004.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Philip Stahel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Philip Mehler</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ted Clarke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeffrey Varnell</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2009, 3:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-07-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-14</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/11">
        <title>Lower extremity compartment syndrome in the acute care surgery paradigm: safety lessons learned </title>
        <description>Background:
Prompt diagnosis and decompression of acute lower extremity compartment syndrome (LECS) in the multisystem injured patient is essential to avoid the devastating complications of progressive tissue necrosis and amputation. Despite collaborative trauma and orthopedic management of these difficult cases, significant delays in diagnosis and treatment occur. Periodic system review of our trauma and orthopedic data for complications of LECS led us to hypothesize that delayed diagnosis and limb loss were potentially preventable events in our trauma center.SettingAcademic level 1 trauma center.
Methods:
We performed a prospective review of our trauma registry for all cases of LECS over a 7 year period (2/98&#8211;10/2005). Variables reviewed included demographics, injury patterns, tissue necrosis, amputation and mortality.
Results:
Eighty-three (10 female, 73 male) cases were reviewed. Mean age = 33.3 years (range 1&#8211;78). Mean ISS = 19.4, GCS = 12.5. Five (6.0%) had amputations; 7 (8.4%) died. Fractures occurred in 68.7% (n = 57), and vascular injuries were present in 38.6% (n = 32). In 7 patients (8.4%), a delayed compartment release resulted in muscle necrosis requiring multiple debridements, subsequent wound closure problems, and long term disability. Of note, none of these patients had prior compartment pressure measurements. Furthermore, 6 patients (7%) had superficial peroneal nerve transections as complications of their fasciotomy.
Conclusion:
In the multisystem injured patient, LECS remains a major diagnostic and treatment challenge with significant risks of limb loss as well as complications from decompressive fasciotomy. These data underscore the importance of routine surveillance for LECS. In addition, a thorough knowledge of regional anatomy is essential to avoid technical morbidity.</description>
        <link>http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>Jeffry Kashuk</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ernest Moore</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sarah Pinski</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeffrey Johnson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Moore</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Steven Morgan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Clay Cothren</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Wade Smith</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Patient Safety in Surgery 2009, 3:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-15T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1754-9493-3-11</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Patient Safety in Surgery</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1754-9493</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-15T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
