RESUMEN
Our planet is in the midst of an environmental crisis. Government and international agencies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urge radical and transformative change at every level of how we conduct our personal and professional lives. The health care industry contributes to climate change. According to a study from the University of Chicago, the health care sector accounts for 8% of the United States' total greenhouse gas emissions. In an effort to understand the current state of environmental practice, attitudes, and knowledge among anesthesiologists in the United States, we conducted a survey of American anesthesiologists regarding environmental sustainability. The environmental survey was sent out by e-mail to a random sampling of 5200 members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. This process was repeated a second time. A total of 2189 anesthesiologists of 5200 responded to the survey, a 42% response rate. Of the survey respondents, 80.1% (confidence interval, 78.2%-81.9%) were interested in recycling. Respondents reported recycling in 27.7% of operating rooms where they work. The majority of respondents (67%; confidence interval, 64%-69%) reported there was insufficient information on how to recycle intraoperatively. Respondents supported sustainability practices such as reprocessing equipment, using prefilled syringes, and donating unused equipment and supplies. The affirmative response rate was 48.4% for reprocessing equipment, 56.6% for using prefilled syringes, and 65.1% for donating equipment and supplies to medical missions. Questions about hospital-wide organization of sustainability programs elicited many "I don't know" responses. Eighteen percent of responders indicated the presence of a sustainability or "green" task force. A total of 12.6% of responders indicated the presence of a mandate from hospital leadership to promote sustainability programs. Two important conclusions drawn from the survey data are a lack of hospital-wide organization of sustainability programs and a belief among survey responders that they lack adequate information on recycling and sustainability.
Asunto(s)
Anestesiólogos/organización & administración , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Reciclaje , Anestesiólogos/educación , Anestesiólogos/estadística & datos numéricos , Cambio Climático , Medicina Ambiental , Humanos , Periodo Intraoperatorio , Reciclaje/estadística & datos numéricos , Sociedades Médicas/organización & administración , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Since its introduction in 1994, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has rapidly gained popularity for the treatment of morbid obesity. Historically, the operation is performed in a retrocolic fashion; however antecolic LRYGB has been advocated as a safe alternative. We reviewed our experience with both techniques. From January 2003 to November 2004, the new UCLA Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery Program performed 341 LRYGBs. In March 2004, our program transitioned from a retrocolic to an antecolic approach for all gastric bypass procedures. Institutional review board approval was obtained, and the data for all patients was collected into a prospective database. The patient characteristics for the two groups were similar. The significant differences between the two groups were average body mass index and the percentage of patients with diabetes and sleep apnea. The complication profiles for the two groups were also similar. There were significant differences between the two groups in the reoperation rate, antecolic 2.0 per cent versus retrocolic 7.8 per cent, and length of stay, antecolic 2.57 versus retrocolic 2.89 days. There were no anastomotic leaks or deaths in either group. Antecolic LRYGB is safe and may be associated with fewer complications. Only long-term weight loss results and complication rates will provide a definitive answer.