Moving toward point-of-care surgery in Ukraine: testing an ultra-portable operating room in an active war zone.

purposeIn conflict zones, providers may have to decide between delaying time-sensitive surgeries or performing operative interventions in the field, potentially subjecting patients to significant infection risks. We conducted a single-arm crossover study to assess the feasibility of using an ultraportable operating room (U-OR) for surgical procedures on a porcine cadaver abdominal traumatic injury model in an active war zone.

methodsWe enrolled participants from an ASSET-type course designed to train Ukrainian surgeons before deployment to active conflict zones. They performed three standardized consecutive abdominal surgical procedures (liver, kidney, and small bowel injury repair) with and without the U-OR. Primary outcomes included surgical procedure completion rate, procedure time, and airborne particle count at the start of surgery. Secondary survey-based outcomes assessed surgery task load index (SURG-TLX) and perceived operative factors.

resultsFourteen surgeons performed 76 surgical procedures (38 with the U-OR, 38 without the U-OR). The completion rate for each surgical procedure was 100% in both groups. While the procedure time for the liver injury repair did not differ significantly between the two groups, the use of the U-OR was associated with a longer time for kidney (155 vs. 56 s, p = 0.002), and small bowel (220 vs. 103 s, p = 0.004) injury repair. The average airborne particle count within the U-OR was substantially lower compared to outside the U-OR (6,753,852 vs. 232,282 n/m

conclusionThe use of the U-OR did not affect the procedure completion rate or SURG-TLX. However, there was a marked difference in airborne particle counts between inside and outside the U-OR during surgery. These preliminary findings indicate the potential feasibility of using a U-OR to perform abdominal damage-control surgical procedures in austere settings.