Endoscopic retrieval of ingested magnets in children and role of magnetic retrievers

Background Various high-powered magnetic toy sets constitute a major hazard as the small magnets can be easily swallowed or aspirated by young children. Multiple ingested magnets or the ingestion of a magnet with another metallic object can pose a serious threat as this may lead to bowel perforation, fistulation, intestinal volvulus, bowel obstruction and death. Main body Retrieval of ingested magnets from the stomach is routinely performed endoscopically but can become a painstaking quest involving many tedious attempts to secure the magnet(s). Historically, pre-routine endoscopy, magnetic retrievers were used under fluoroscopic control for the removal of metallic objects in the stomach. With the advent of endoscopic retrieval instruments, they fell out of favour and are no longer readily available on the market. Despite this, conventional endoscopic instruments are likely to be less effective than endoscopic-assisted magnetic retrievers due to confounding weak bonds which form between the metal retrieval device and the magnet. Preoperative testing, and selection of the retrieval instrument with the strongest coupling effect with a magnet, might be beneficial. A simple, endoscopic-assisted magnetic retriever created in theatre can allow for more effective, time-efficient and safe removal of ingested magnets under direct vision. Conclusion Urgent removal of multiple ingested magnets or a single ingested magnet coupled with another ingested metallic object should be highlighted. Stricter implementation of a widespread ban over loose magnetic toys is needed. Standardised protocols for the surgical management of ingested magnets should be available in every hospital.

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries

Background There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. Methods We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Results Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. Conclusions BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak.

Overuse of diagnostic testing in healthcare: a systematic review

BackgroundOveruse of diagnostic testing substantially contributes to healthcare expenses and potentially exposes patients to unnecessary harm. Our objective was to systematically identify and examine studies that assessed the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse across healthcare settings to estimate the overall prevalence of low-value diagnostic overtesting.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception until 18 February 2020 to identify articles published in the English language that examined the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse using database data. Each of the assessments was categorised as using a patient-indication lens, a patient-population lens or a service lens.Results118 assessments of diagnostic testing overuse, extracted from 35 studies, were included in this study. Most included assessments used a patient-indication lens (n=67, 57%), followed by the service lens (n=27, 23%) and patient-population lens (n=24, 20%). Prevalence estimates of diagnostic testing overuse ranged from 0.09% to 97.5% (median prevalence of assessments using a patient-indication lens: 11.0%, patient-population lens: 2.0% and service lens: 30.7%). The majority of assessments (n=85) reported overuse of diagnostic testing to be below 25%. Overuse of diagnostic imaging tests was most often assessed (n=96). Among the 33 assessments reporting high levels of overuse (≥25%), preoperative testing (n=7) and imaging for uncomplicated low back pain (n=6) were most frequently examined. For assessments of similar diagnostic tests, major variation in the prevalence of overuse was observed. Differences in the definitions of low-value tests used, their operationalisation and assessment methods likely contributed to this observed variation.ConclusionOur findings suggest that substantial overuse of diagnostic testing is present with wide variation in overuse. Preoperative testing and imaging for non-specific low back pain are the most frequently identified low-value diagnostic tests. Uniform definitions and assessments are required in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of diagnostic testing overuse.