Advertisement

Intraoperative Surgical Decision-Making: Is It Art or Is It Science or Is It Both?

  • Rifat LatifiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

How do we surgeons make decisions under what can be inauspicious conditions is not entirely clear. One would think and hope that we have streamlined this process clearly by now since such decisions are made countless times daily across the world. Dissecting the anatomy of this process is of great importance to all surgeons and those who work with surgeons. Most importantly, however, is the question, do patients understand entirely the thought process of their surgeon and how is this incorporated into the consent for the operation. Many of us make decisions for which later we may not have solid reason why we did it. Usually, these are decisions made on the basis of “a gut feeling” or “intuition” or the “gray hair effect” among other “techniques.” The aim of this chapter is to set the stage for the entire book on this complex and very important process, which if done properly and timely may prevent, minimize, or avoid altogether serious intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Keywords

Surgical decision Surgical standards Checklist Technological advances Intraoperative decision 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Elizabeth H. Tilley, PhD for her contribution to this to this and other chapters in the early stage of this book.

References

  1. 1.
    Marshall JC. Surgical decision-making: integrating evidence, inference, and experience. Surg Clin North Am. 2006;86(1):201–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Latifi R, Gruessner R, Rhee P. Intraoperative decision-making process: the art and the science. In: Latifi R, editor. Surgery of complex abdominal wall defects. New York: Springer; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korenkov M, Troidl H, Sauerland S. Individualized surgery in the time of evidence-based medicine. Ann Surg. 2014;259(5):e76–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu Z, Vakalopoulos KA, Kroese LF, Boersema GS, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Reducing anastomotic leakage by reinforcement of colorectal anastomosis with cyanoacrylate glue. Eur Surg Res. 2013;50(3–4):255–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA. Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003144. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD003144.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beitler AL, Urschel JD. Comparison of stapled and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses. Am J Surg. 1998;175(4):337–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Law WL, Bailey HR, Max E, Butts DR, Smith KW, Thompson DA, Skakun GB, Graves E. Single-layer continuous colon and rectal anastomosis using monofilament absorbable suture (Maxon): study of 500 cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42(6):736–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shogan BD, Carlisle EM, Alverdy JC, Umanskiy K. Do we really know why colorectal anastomoses leak? J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(9):1698–707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flin R, Youngson G, Yule S. How do surgeons make intraoperative decisions? Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(3):235–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pauley K, Flin R, Yule S, Youngson G. Surgeons’ intraoperative decision making and risk management. Am J Surg. 2011;202:375–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Velanovich V. Operative decisions. Theor Surg. 1991;638–40.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jalote-Parmar A, Badke-Schaub P. Work flow integration matrix: a framework to support the development of surgical information systems. Des Stud. 2008;29(4):338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latifi R, Rhee P, Gruessner WR, editors. Technological advances in surgery, trauma and critical care. New York: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orasanu 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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parker SH, Yule S, Flin R, McKinley A. Surgeons’ leadership in the operating room: an observational study. Am J Surg. 2012;204(3):347–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parker SH, Flin R, McKinley A, Yule S. The Surgeons’ Leadership Inventory (SLI): a taxonomy and rating system for surgeons' intraoperative leadership skills. Am J Surg. 2013;205(6):745–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWestchester Medical Center, New York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations