ArticleHNO2022
[Time management in operating rooms-a cross-sectional study to evaluate estimated and objective durations of otorhinolaryngologic surgical procedures].
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Influencing factors on operating times for metal bar removal after Nuss repair].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate planning of operating times in surgical clinics is essential. Moreover, high-capacity utilization of operating rooms (ORs) is necessary for economic efficiency.
objectiveMost planning of operating times is performed by surgeons. Herein, surgeons' estimated times and the objective times for performing surgical procedures were compared to detect sources of error. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a retrospective analysis, the durations of 1809 operations using general anesthesia (22 types of surgery) by 31 surgeons (12 specialists and 19 residents) were compared. Comparisons were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U‑tests.
resultsThe comparison of objective times of surgical action showed significant differences between specialists and residents in 6 of 15 types of surgeries. The post-processing times estimated by specialists deviated from the objective times in 2 out of 22 surgery types, while the post-processing times estimated by residents deviated in 7 of 15 types. Specialists misjudged the incision-to-suture times in 7 of 22 surgery types, and residents misjudged these times in 3 of 15 types. The preparation times estimated by specialists deviated from the objective times in 16 of 22 types of surgeries and in 7 of 15 types estimated by residents.
conclusionA surgeon's routine must be carefully considered in order to estimate operating times. Specialists generally underestimated preparation and post-processing times and overestimated incision-to-suture times, whereas residents underestimated all three. Preparation and post-processing times must be considered in planning and, ideally, determined together with anesthesiologists and surgical assistants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.