Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Douglas S Kondziolka

Publications and source records attributed to Douglas S Kondziolka.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Improving the informed consent process for surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Obtaining and documenting informed consent is of vital importance to physicians. We developed a procedure-based consent form that facilitates patient discussion and validated this process by surveying the patient regarding elements of the consent process, using an independent evaluator. METHODS: One hundred and twenty consecutive outpatients were evaluated before different neurosurgery procedures. The consent form listed specific diagnoses, procedures, alternatives (eight listed), and risks (22 listed), and each point discussed was checked off by the surgeon. Between 10 and 20 minutes later, each element was questioned by one lay-member of the office staff. A group of patients not at risk for cognitive decline were resurveyed months later. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty (100%) of 120 of patients answered correctly regarding their diagnosis and the planned procedure. Four hundred and twenty-eight alternative treatments were discussed, and 420 (98.1%) of the 428 were recalled correctly. Of 1207 risks that were discussed, 1176 (97.4%) were recalled correctly. When a subset of the patients were reevaluated at a mean of 4.5 months later, all 20 patients correctly recalled their procedure and diagnosis. Of 79 alternatives discussed with patients before surgery, 73 (92.4%) were subsequently recalled. Of 217 risks discussed before surgery, 199 (91.7%) were recalled. Although the immediate or delayed recall rates were high (> 90%), there was a reduction in the recall rate over time (alternatives, P = .007; risks, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A consent process designed for an individual surgeon's practice was validated and showed high rates of patient recall in the postprocedural period. We think that this method to obtain and document informed consent should be considered for use by physicians.

Consent Forms↗

When the bone flap hits the floor.

OBJECTIVE: There is no published data in the neurosurgical literature describing the incidence, treatment, or outcome of contaminating a bone flap. We reviewed our departmental experience to determine methods of prevention and assess our treatment strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all incidents of dropped bone flaps during a craniotomy at a single medical center during a 16-year period. In addition, a questionnaire was mailed to neurosurgeons in the United States and abroad asking their own experience and method of management. RESULTS: Fourteen incidents of dropped bone flaps occurred during a 16-year period. Follow-up varied from 2 to 176 months. The bone flap was dropped while elevating the bone (n = 4), when handing the bone off the field (n = 4), and during plating (n = 4). The context was unknown in two cases. Management included soaking the flap in betadine and/or antibiotic solution (n = 8), autoclaving (n = 2), or discarding the bone flap and replacing with a mesh cranioplasty (n = 3). The treatment remains unknown in one case. No instances of infection were noted in follow-up. In response to the survey, 66% (33 out of 50) of the polled neurosurgeons had experienced this complication during their practice, and 83% would replace the bone flap after disinfection. CONCLUSION: Dropping a bone flap during neurosurgery remains an uncommon but preventable complication. Treatment options include discarding the bone followed by cranioplasty versus replacing the bone after treatment with antibiotic irrigation, betadine, and/or autoclaving. Replacement after disinfection is an appropriate option for contaminated bone flaps that avoids the expense and time of cranioplasty.

Adult↗