Intraoperative Decision-Making Process in Complex Surgery

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The intraoperative decision-making process is complex, and despite its importance, it has not been elucidated. Some atribute these decisions as “intuition” or “gut-level” responses. However, often we surgeons may have difficulties describing how we made decisions even when that decision was the most correct one. Clearly, there are many factors that affect decision-making of surgeons before and during operations. These include surgeon’s education, clinical experience, leadership ability, mental state, physiology, and creativity, as well as objective data from the patient’s physiology and anatomy.

Other major factors are the physiologic state of the surgeon, the harmony of teamwork, external factors at work, and the surgeon’s ability to adapt quickly to a changing environment, to name only a few.

Keywords

Surgical decision making Surgeon’s physiology Anatomy Education Intuition Evidence Patient’s physiology Creativity Complex surgery 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Flin R, Youngson G, Yule S. How do surgeons make intraoperative decisions? Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(3):235–9. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.020743.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pauley K, Flin R, Yule S, Youngson G. Surgeons’ intraoperative decision making and risk management. Am J Surg. 2011;202(4):375–81. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.11.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orasnu J, Fischer U. Finding decisions in natural environments: the view from the cockpit. In: Naturalistic Decision-Making. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klein G. A recognition-primed decision making (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In: Decision Making in Action. New York: Ablex; 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolotin G, Kypson AP, Nifong LW, Chitwood WR. A technique for evaluating competitive flow for intraoperative decision making in coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76(6):2118–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Velanovich V. Operative decisions; Theor Surg. 1991;638–40.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aziz F, Khalil A, Hall JC. Evolution of trends in risk management. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(7):603–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03418.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czyzewska E, Kiczka K, Czarnecki A, Pokinko P. The surgeon’s mental load during decision making at various stages of operations. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1983;51(3):441–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jalote-Parmar A, Badke-Schaub P. Workflow integration matrix: A framework to support the development of surgical information systems. Des Stud. 2008;29(4):338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jalote-Parmar A, Badke-Schaub P. Critical factors influencing intra-operative surgical decision-making. New York, NY: IEEE; 2008. p. 1091–6. doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811427.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Croskerry P. The theory and practice of clinical decision-making. Can J Anesth. 2005;52(1):R1–8. doi: 10.1007/BF03023077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Velmahos GC. Commentary on “vacuum-assisted closure in severe abdominal sepsis with or without retention sutured sequential fascial closure: a clinical trial”. Surgery. 2010;148(5):954. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.03.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tisherman SA, Barie P, Bokhari F, et al. Clinical practice guideline: endpoints of resuscitation. J Trauma. 2004;57(4):898–912.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latifi R, Leppäniemi A. Complex abdominal wall defects and enterocutaneous fistulae in the era of biological mesh: did we make any real progress? World J Surg. 2012;36(3):495–6. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1308-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Latifi R, Joseph B, Kulvatunyou N, et al. Enterocutaneous fistulas and a hostile abdomen: reoperative surgical approaches. World J Surg. 2012;36(3):516–23. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1306-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latifi R, Gustafson M. Abdominal wall reconstruction in patients with enterocutaneous fistulas. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2011;37(3):241–50. doi: 10.1007/s00068-011-0108-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD, et al. “Damage control”: an approach for improved survival in exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma. 1993;35(3):375–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWestchester Medical Center and New York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA

Personalised recommendations