Abstract
Surgical procedures related to complex problems of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract carry significant risks and complications, whether performed alone or in combination with abdominal wall reconstruction. Despite the most conscientious preoperative preparations, surprising events may still occur. If the operation takes an unplanned turn, the surgeon has to make difficult decisions. An absolute must is continuous awareness of the intraoperative patient’s physiologic status—including fluid status, urine output, use of blood and blood products, bleeding, current medications (such as pressors), and biochemical endpoints of resuscitation, such as base deficit and lactic acid. Even when the operation is going well, the biochemical profile of the patient may not be optimal or even satisfactory, which may directly affect the outcome. In addition, the surgeon must recognize his or her own physiologic status; if tired, for example, cutting corners and making major errors are likely to occur more frequently. We discuss these and other elements that are important for the intraoperative decision-making process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Flin R, Youngson G, Yule S. How do surgeons make intraoperative decisions? Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(3):235–9.
Pauley K, Flin R, Yule S, Youngson G. Surgeons’ intraoperative decision making and risk management. Am J Surg. 2011;202:375–81.
Orasnu J, Fischer U. Finding decisions in natural environments: the view from the cockpit. In: Zsambok C, Klein G, editors. Naturalistic decision making. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.
Klein G. A recognition-primed decision making (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In: Klein G, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambock C, editors. Decision making in action. New York: Ablex; 1993.
Bolotin G, Kypson A, Nifang W, et al. A technique for evaluating competitive flow for intraoperative decision making in coronary heart surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:2118–20.
Velanovich V. Operative decisions. Theor Surg. 1991;638–40.
Aziz F, Khalil A, Hall J. Evolution of trends in risk management. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:603–7.
Czyzeweska E, Kicka K, Czarnecki A, et al. The surgeon’s mental load during decision making at various stages of operations. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1983;51:441–6.
Jalote-Parmar A, Badke-Schaub P. Critical factors influencing intra-operative surgical decision-making. International conference on systems, man and cybernetics SMC. 2008;1091–6.
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.
Crosskerry P. The theory and practice of clinical decision-making. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:R18.
Tisherman SA, Barie P, Bokhari F, et al. Clinical practice guideline: endpoints of resuscitation. J Trauma. 2004;57:898–912.
Velhamos G, Demetriades D, Shoemaker W, et al. Endpoints of resuscitation of critically injured patients: normal or Supranormal? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000;232:409–18.
Latifi R, Leppaniemi 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.
Latifi R, Joseph B, Kulvatunyou N, Wynne JL, O’Keeffe T, Tang A, et al. Enterocutaneous fistulas and a hostile abdomen: reoperative surgical approaches. World J Surg. 2012;36(3):516–23.
Latifi R, Gustafson M. Abdominal wall reconstruction in patients with enterocutaneous fistulas. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2011;37:241–50.
Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD, Phillips GR, Fruchterman TM, Kauder DR, et al. “Damage control”: an approach for improved survival with exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma. 1993;35(3):375–82.
Diaz Jr J, Cullinane DC, Dutton DW, et al. The management of the open abdomen in trauma and emergency general surgery: part 1—damage control. J Trauma. 2010;68:1425–38.
Midwinter MJ. Damage control surgery in the era of damage control resuscitation. J R Army Med Corps. 2009;155:323–6.
Smith BP, Adams RC, Dorasiwamy VA, et al. Review of abdominal damage control and open abdomens: focus on gastrointestinal complications. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2010;19(4):425–35.
Stawiicki SP, Cipolla J, Bria C, et al. Comparison of open abdomens in non-trauma and trauma patients: a retrospective study. OPUS 12 Sci. 2007;1:1–8.
Scott BG, Feanny MA, Hirshberg A. Early definitive closure of the open abdomen: a quiet revolution. Scand J Surg. 2005;94:9–14.
Leppaniemi A. The hostile abdomen—a systematic approach to a complex problem. Scand J Surg. 2008;7:218–9.
Erdmann D, Drye C, Heller L, et al. Abdominal wall defect and enterocutaneous fistula treatment with the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):2066–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Latifi, R., Gruessner, R.W.G., Rhee, P. (2013). Intraoperative Decision-Making Process: The Art and the Science. In: Latifi, R. (eds) Surgery of Complex Abdominal Wall Defects. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6354-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6354-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6353-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6354-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)