Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1232_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
16 Мб
Скачать
☆
492
H. A. Bhatti and L. L. Perea
• Hematoma/seroma formation – Acute uid collections, such as hematoma or seroma,
place physical stress on the incision which may result in dehiscence.
• Poor surgical technique – Early wound dehiscence dened as up to days 5–8
from surgery is often attributed to poor surgical tech­nique. For fascial closure, the STITCH trial showed the rate of incisional hernia was signicantly lower in patients receiving small bites versus large bites.
• Excessive tension – A core general surgery principle is to always avoid ten-
sion when bringing two tissues together for an anasto­mosis whether it may be intestinal or wound edges; the same concept applies.
History Should Also Focus on Symptoms, Being Sure to Rule Out Other Possibilities:
• Fascial dehiscence
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection
• Cellulitis
• Abscess
• Intestinal stula
Physical Examination
• Check vital signs and systemic signs including fever.
• Look for peritoneal signs (guarding, rebound).
• Examine wound edges which may be separated; evaluate
for discharge or pus or erythema.
• Evaluate for fascial integrity.
• Activity modication: Advise patient to avoid heavy lift­ing and strenuous exercise that can place stress on the wound.
• Follow-up: Schedule a follow-up clinic visit in 5 days to reassess wound healing progress, review culture results, and make further management decisions.

Common Curveballs

• Palpable uctuant mass indicating abscess
– Requires further treatment with incision and
drainage
• Feculent drainage from wound suggesting stula
– Consider cross-sectional imaging for further charac-
terization; then proceed with stula management.
• Fascial defect indicating deep wound dehiscence
– May require local care versus revision surgery depend-
ing on size, patient symptoms, and clinical status

Clean Kills

• Not ruling out or evaluating for deeper infections
• Not recognizing difference between incisional versus fas­cial dehiscence
• Returning to the operating room for supercial wound infection, i.e., cellulitis

Summary

Diagnostic Tests
• Wound dehiscence normally diagnosed on clinical pre­sentation and examination.
• Complete blood count (CBC).
• Wound culture.
• Ultrasound to assess for collections.
• Computerized tomography (CT) is not needed unless deeper infection is suspected.

Treatment

• Local wound care: Emphasize importance of maintaining wound hygiene; instruct patient to gently cleanse wound and pat dry.
• Antibiotics: Initiate empiric antibiotics with evidence of cellulitis to cover potential bacterial colonization at the wound site until the culture results are available.
• Dressings: Apply sterile, non-adherent dressings to mini­mize friction and promote a moist wound environment which can enhance healing.
Based on the clinical presentation and examination, this patient is diagnosed with supercial wound dehiscence. Supercial wound dehiscence refers to the partial or complete separation of the outer layers of a surgical wound, often involving skin and subcutaneous tissue without involvement of deeper structures. Incisional wound dehiscence can be treated with local wound care with interval follow-up.
Fascial Dehiscence withEvisceration ofBowel

Concept

In contrast to supercial wound dehiscence, patients may present emergently to the emergency room in acute distress several days after open abdominal surgery. Presentation and exam will guide and necessitate operative intervention.
141 Wound Dehiscence
493
Way Question May BeAsked?
“A 62-year-old female returns urgently to the emergency room with complaints of sudden and severe abdominal pain accompanied by protrusion of bowel through an open abdominal wound. She has a history of diverticular disease and underwent emergent Hartmann’s procedure 5 days ago due to perforated sigmoid colon.”
This case is presenting a patient in extremis after a
Hartmann’s procedure with descriptions of bowel emanating from wound signifying evisceration.
How toAnswer?
History (See Previous Case for Details)
• Diabetes mellitus
• Obesity
• Hypertension
• Malnutrition
• Immunocompromised
• Infection
• Advanced age
• Corticosteroid use
• Tobacco use
• Hematoma/seroma formation
• Poor surgical technique
• Excessive tension
History Should Also Focus on Symptoms, Being Sure to Rule Out Other Possibilities:
• Supercial wound dehiscence
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection
• Cellulitis
• Abscess
• Intestinal stula
Physical Examination
• Check vital signs and systemic signs including fever.
• Look for peritoneal signs (guarding, rebound).
• Examine incisional wound which will demonstrate wid­ened edges usually >5 cm at site of prior surgery with evisceration of bowel loops. Exposed bowel may be edematous and congested.
Diagnostic Tests
• Fascial dehiscence with bowel evisceration is diagnosed on history and physical examination.
• Arterial blood gas (ABG) can indicate early evidence of metabolic acidosis and guide resuscitation efforts.
• Complete blood count (CBC) can indicate leukocytosis which may be reactive or infectious if a deep space infec­tion is present.
• Computerized tomography (CT) is not required when there is evidence of bowel evisceration.

Treatment

• Stabilization of patient: Intravenous uids, broad­spectrum antibiotics, and emergent operative intervention.
• Surgery: Laparotomy. Assess bowel viability of congested bowel loops. Management may vary depending on the status of bowel; however if congestion and ischemia pres­ent, bowel resection of the nonviable segment and pri­mary anastomosis.
• Wound closure: Primary closure using nonabsorbable sutures. Consideration for retention sutures. Consideration of mesh closure if indicated.

Common Curveballs

• Unstable intraoperatively: Consider damage control approach, temporary abdominal closure with continued resuscitation in critical care setting.
• Bowel ischemia is a possibility with strangulation of bowel; continue with bowel resection, and if patient is stable, proceed with anastomosis.
• No fascial defect but feculent drainage from wound sug­gesting stula—consider cross-sectional imaging and proceed with stula management.

Clean Kills

• Delaying operative intervention for imaging
• Attempting to manage bowel evisceration nonoperatively
• Not performing laparotomy
• Attempting to perform diagnostic laparoscopy
• Not recognizing difference between incisional versus fas­cial dehiscence

Summary

Fascial dehiscence with bowel evisceration is a surgi­cal emergency. In this case, the patient is promptly diagnosed on presentation with physical exam find­ings of wound separation with visualization of bowel. Care should not be delayed with obtaining imaging. Open approach is standard of care for bowel evisceration.
494
H. A. Bhatti and L. L. Perea

Enterocutaneous Fistula

Concept

Enterocutaneous stulas usually have an indolent presenta­tion with a patient presenting several weeks later with small opening from incision or abdominal wall with bilious type drainage. Patients usually have a prolonged or complicated postoperative course. Questions will test recognition, risk factor assessment, and management of enterocutaneous stulas.
Way Question May BeAsked?
“A 54-year-old male presents to the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and drainage of feculent material from abdominal wound. He underwent previous laparotomy with small bowel resection 6 weeks prior due to complicated small bowel obstruction which required exten­sive lysis of adhesions. His postoperative course was compli­cated by an anastomotic leak which required re-exploration.”
This case is presenting a patient who had a prolonged hos­pital course and postoperative complication after an explor­atory laparotomy for bowel obstruction which necessitated extensive lysis of adhesions.
How toAnswer?
History
• Look for “FRIENDS”
• Foreign body
• Radiation
• Inammation (Crohn’s disease)
• Infection
• Epithelialization of stula tract
• Neoplasm
• Distal obstruction
• Steroids
History Should Also Focus on Symptoms, Being Sure to Rule Out Other Possibilities:
• Supercial versus deep wound dehiscence
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection
• Cellulitis
• Abscess
Physical Examination
• Check vital signs and systemic signs including fever.
• Peritoneal signs usually absent.
• Perform local wound examination; there may be signs of erythema, edema, or induration. There is usually steady leakage of bilious or feculent material from wounds with fascial integrity intact.
Diagnostic Tests
• Enterocutaneous stula may be suspected based on his­tory and physical examination.
• Basic metabolic panel (BMP) to evaluate for electrolyte imbalances.
• Complete blood count (CBC).
• Computerized tomography (CT) with contrast can con­rm presence of stula formation and rule out surround­ing abscess formation as well as distal obstruction.

Treatment

• Wound care: Perform local wound care to protect sur­rounding skin; consider ostomy appliance to measure output to classify as high (>500cc/day) or low (<200cc/ day).
• High output stula: Consider bowel rest with parenteral nutrition to promote healing; if signs of infection are pres­ent, consider broad-spectrum antibiotics and source con­trol if indicated.
• Low output stula: The patient may continue oral diet with expectant management.
• Percutaneous drain placement under image guidance if abscess is visualized.
• Antibiotic treatment if abscess is identied.

Common Curveballs

• Distal obstruction present
• High output stula with electrolyte imbalance

Clean Kills

• Proceeding to surgery for low output stula
• Failing to recognize risk factors for stula formation

Summary

Enterocutaneous stulas are abnormal communications between the gastrointestinal tract and the skin. There are various etiologies including surgical complications, inam­mation, and trauma. Prompt diagnosis is important to prevent sepsis, malnutrition, and electrolyte imbalances.
141 Wound Dehiscence
495

Bonus Points

• Risk factors that impede wound healing and increase abdominal pressure as related to wound dehiscence. It is imperative to articulate your knowledge of the risk factors to the examiners which include diabetes mellitus, obesity, malnutrition, immunocompromised, and corticosteroid and tobacco use.
• Gram-positive pathogens particularly enterococci have been implicated as an independent risk factor and empiric antibiotic coverage may be considered.
• Postoperative wound infection and emergent surgery are signicant risk factors for abdominal wound dehiscence.
• Consider use of negative pressure wound vacuum in abdominal wounds to assist with granulation tissue formation.
Words ofWisdom
Postoperative wound complications can vary in complexity and need for repeat surgical intervention. Having a methodi­cal approach to these patients in both the clinical evaluation and workup can prevent delays in care. At times urgent or emergent surgical intervention is required in patients with wound dehiscence or evisceration and thus prompt recogni­tion of these conditions is necessary.

Bibliography

Gillespie BM, Harbeck EL, Sandy-Hodgetts K, Rattray M, Thalib L,
Patel B, etal. Incidence of wound dehiscence in patients undergoing laparoscopy or laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Wound Care. 2023;32(Sup8a):S31–43.
Gonzalez M, Ruffa T, Scaravonati R, Ardiles V, Brandi C, Bertone
S. Fascial dehiscence: predictable complication? Development and validation of a risk model: a retrospective cohort study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2023;408(1):50.
Lozada Hernández EE, Hernández Bonilla JP, Hinojosa Ugarte D,
Magdaleno García M, Mayagoitía González JC, Zúñiga Vázquez LA, etal. Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia pre­vention in midline laparotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg988. 2023;408(1):268.
National Institutes of Health. Wound dehiscence and surgical site
complications. MedlinePlus. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/arti-
cle/002979.htm. Updated July 15, 2022; Accessed August 23,
2023.
Smith AB, Johnson CD.Wound dehiscence: risk factors and manage-
ment. J Wound Care. 2018;27(5):281–5. https://doi.org/10.12968/
jowc.2018.27.5.281.
Stropnicky PV, Kandemir F, Schäffer M, Pochhammer J.Abdominal
fascia dehiscence: is there a connection to a special microbial spec­trum? Hernia. 2023;27(3):549–56.
Tansawet A, Numthavaj P, Techapongsatorn T, Techapongsatorn S,
Attia J, McKay G, etal. Fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2022;46(12):2984–95.
Taylor D, Dooreemeah D, Al HY, Jacobs R.Vacuum assisted closure
with mesh mediated fascial traction of open abdominal wounds and acute fascial dehiscence, a single institution experience. ANZ J Surg. 2023;93(7):1793–8.
Teklemariam BT, Biyana CF, Asfaw SA.Determinants of postoperative
abdominal wound dehiscence among patients operated in a tertiary hospital. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022;32(4):739–46.
White M.The management of enterocutaneous stula. Cham: Springer
International Publishing; 2023. [cited 2023 Aug 24]
Alam M, Harikumar V, Reynolds KA, Hsu DY, Lazaroff JM, Chen
BR, et al. Risk factors for postoperative wound dehiscence after skin repair: a case-control study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(5):1099–102.

Surgical Site Infections

AbdullahWafa andStefanLeichtle
142

Concept

Surgical site infections (SSIs) can occur on three different levels: supercial incisional (skin and subcutaneous tissue layers), deep incisional (muscle or connective tissue layers), and organ space, potentially also involving more than one level simultaneously. Classic SSI exam ndings may not be provided initially, as the examiner will want to see that you have a high index of suspicion for an SSI, prompting you to inquire about these classic ndings on the history and physi­cal exam portions of the case. Examples of history and phys­ical exam ndings include fever, chills, diaphoresis, pain at the surgical site (including organ-space abdominal pain if abdominal surgery was performed), erythema, tenderness to palpation, uctuance, induration, and/or purulent drainage. Should a patient present with fever postoperatively, keep in mind the common causes of postoperative fever (5 Ws— Wind, Water, Walk, Wound, Wonder Drugs). As such, a patient presenting with a fever around 5–7 days postopera­tively may have a wound infection at any of the three levels.
If history and physical exam ndings are nonspecic,
additional workup includes laboratory testing (CBC with leukocytosis and a left shift, elevated CRP or ESR, possible lactic acidosis) and imaging studies (ultrasound, CT scan, etc.).
Way Questions May BeAsked?
“A 32-year-old man who recently had an appendectomy for perforated appendicitis 5 days ago presents to the emergency department with subjective fevers and worsening abdominal pain as well as pain at his umbilical incision. On physical exam, the patient is febrile to 101 °F, tachycardic, and dia­phoretic. He has an erythematous and tender umbilical inci-
A. Wafa (*) · S. Leichtle Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Inova Fairfax Medical Center, Falls Church, VA, USA e-mail: Abdullah.wafa@inova.org; stefan.leichtle@inova.org
sion and has also tenderness to palpation in the suprapubic region.” It is an easy pitfall to assume the patient simply has an incisional infection and you may miss a simultaneous organ-space infection. Given the history of a perforated appendix, the patient will need further workup with a CT of the abdomen and pelvis to evaluate for an intra-abdominal abscess.
“A 58-year-old morbidly obese woman presents to the clinic for routine follow-up after an open ventral hernia repair with mesh 2 weeks prior. The hernia occurred after a motor vehicle collision, resulting in a traumatic ventral her­nia and a large abdominal laceration, both of which were repaired during her operation 2 weeks ago. She has had increasing erythema around her incision the last few days. On exam, there are erythema, tenderness to palpation, and uctuance at the incision with staples still in place.” If pre­sented in clinic, attempt opening of the incision in clinic with removal of staples. Inquire about the kind of mesh used (per­manent or absorbable), as this will dictate management. The mesh may ultimately need to be removed as part of source control if the infection is determined to involve the mesh and the mesh is of permanent material. Timing will be deter­mined by proximity to the most recent operation, patient pre­operative optimization, and overall current illness severity. If the patient is between 10 days and 2 months postoperative and otherwise clinically stable and healthy, it may be advis­able to temporize the wound infection to allow for intra­abdominal inammatory processes to subside prior to mesh removal and abdominal wall reconstruction. For acutely ill patients, operative intervention may be required sooner.
How toAnswer?
History
• Recent surgery
• Surgical indication, details of operation, type of repair,
materials used in operation, complications (review opera-
tive report)
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 M. Neff et al. (eds.), Passing the General Surgery Oral Board Exam, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78244-2_142
497
498
A. Wafa and S. Leichtle
• Comorbidities, including immunocompromised state, diabetes status, body habitus, smoking, steroid use
• Symptoms (fever, chills, sweats, pain, wound erythema/ drainage/swelling)
• Timing of symptoms from last surgery
• Prior workup
Physical Exam
• Vital signs (fever, hypotension, tachycardia, tachypnea, organ failure)
• Local signs of infection
– Tenderness to palpation – Erythema, cellulitis – Crepitus – Fluctuance, induration, edema, swelling – Drainage (“dishwater uid” indicates necrotizing soft
tissue infection (NSTI)!)
Diagnostic Tests
• Usually, a clinical diagnosis can be made based on history and physical exam with bedside local wound exploration. However, this can be limited by body habitus or location of the SSI, e.g., if organ-space level or deep to the incision.
• Laboratory testing (BMP and CBC, in particular leukocy­tosis with a left shift), elevated CRP/ESR, lactic acidosis. Be prepared for the scenario to convert to a possible NSTI with additional laboratory tests needed to calculate the LRINEC score, such as evaluating for hyperglycemia, hyponatremia, anemia, elevated creatinine, etc., if the clinical diagnosis is unclear.
• Ultrasound.
• CT imaging.
• Rarely, MRI if the patient is pregnant or if a chronic inammatory condition is suspected. Never in an unstable or acutely ill patient.
• (Don’t let a nondiagnostic imaging test talk you out of a clinical diagnosis.)

Treatment

The key to managing SSIs is prompt source control. Inadequate source control, even of a “mere” supercial infec­tion, can lead to serious complications such as NSTI develop­ment or fascial dehiscence after abdominal operations. This can be accomplished in multiple ways depending on the level of SSI.If the infection is supercial incisional or deep inci­sional, re-opening of the wound is paramount to allow for drainage of the infection, irrigation, and possible debride­ment. Healing by secondary intention is key, as attempting to close the wound primarily soon after wound drainage will
likely result in recurrence and possibly failure in the oral board case. Secondary intention healing can be accomplished via daily packing with wet-to-dry gauze either as a permanent treatment for secondary healing or for a few days until the infection is cleared, after which a vacuum dressing can be applied and changed every 2–3 days thereafter.
If the infection involves the organ space, treatment depends on multiple factors, including the patient’s degree of illness, location, and size of the infection/abscess. In general, less invasive options are favored (such as antibiotics or per­cutaneous drains placed by interventional radiology) over more invasive options (reoperation). However, if the patient is in septic shock or in extremis, if interventional radiology is not available or their involvement is signicantly delayed, or if the location of the abscess precludes percutaneous drain­age, more aggressive options will need to be prioritized. Small (<3–4 cm) abscesses found on imaging may be man­aged with antibiotics alone, with repeat imaging in 1–2 weeks, and close follow-up. Larger abscesses (>3–4cm) will need to be drained.
Antibiotics are needed if an SSI is diagnosed and source control has not yet been obtained. Once source control has been obtained, long-term antibiotics are typically not indi­cated. The caveats to this general principle involve the degree of illness of the patient and patient comorbidities. If the patient remains critically ill or in septic shock, antibiotics should be continued until the patient’s septic shock resolves. If the patient is immunocompromised or is a poorly con­trolled diabetic, antibiotics may need to be continued.

Common Curveballs

• Scenario switching to NSTI.
• Scenario switching to management of an infected mesh.
• The patient acutely decompensates while pursuing less
invasive measures.
• Scenario switching to management of a critically ill
patient in the surgical intensive care unit.
• On local wound exploration, the wound is discovered to
track more deeply into the intra-abdominal cavity or
beyond the level of the fascia.
• The scenario switches to hemorrhage control during
wound exploration.
• The scenario switches to a patient in cardiac arrest or to
following ACLS protocols.

Clean Kills

• Missed or delayed diagnosis, with the patient clinically
progressively decompensating
142 Surgical Site Infections
499
• Delay in treatment, especially while waiting for interven­tional radiology
• Not operating on a large organ-space abscess that is inac­cessible by interventional radiology
• Not obtaining a culture to tailor your antibiotic use
• Closing an infected wound immediately after draining it rather than allowing it to heal by secondary intention
• Not controlling blood glucose in diabetic patient
Words ofWisdom
SSIs occur in up to 3% of patients undergoing surgery, depending on level of contamination of a surgical site, patient risk factors, and other modiable and non-modiable periop­erative risk factors, and SSIs can occur even in the best of sterile conditions and circumstances. SSIs can lead to signi­cant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures if not recognized promptly and treated appropriately. Often, the diagnosis can be made clinically, but for deeper SSIs, imag­ing adjuncts may be necessary. SSIs can occur at any of the three levels of wounds and also at more than one level simul-
taneously. Source control by invasive and noninvasive means is the key step for treating any SSI.
SSI oral board cases have the tendency to involve scenario switches to more complex topics, such as abdominal wall reconstruction timing and options, hemorrhage control, ACLS, or intensive care unit management. Also, if antibiot­ics are used for too long of a duration, the scenario may then switch to patients developing complications, such as multidrug- resistant or Clostridium difcile infections.

Bibliography

Burhan A, Khusein NBA, Sebayang SM.Effectiveness of negative pres-
sure wound therapy on chronic wound healing: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Belitung Nurs J. 2022;8(6):470–80. https://doi.
org/10.33546/bnj.2220.
Marzoug OA, Anees A, Malik EM.Assessment of risk factors associated
with surgical site infection following abdominal surgery: a system-
atic review. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2023;5(1):e000182.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit- 2023- 000182.
Seidelman JL, Mantyh CR, Anderson DJ. Surgical site infection
prevention: a review. JAMA. 2023;329(3):244–52. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jama.2022.24075.
Part XIX
Miscellaneous
Best Practices forVirtual Oral Boards
MaserayS.Kamara
143
The COVID-19 pandemic shifted surgical education to vir­tual platforms even extending to the General Surgery Certifying Examination. In October 2020, after two pilot ses­sions, the American Board of Surgery administered the rst, large-scale oral board examination using the Zoom platform. As of the writing of this text, virtual examinations may have become the new oral board standard. We do not know if/ when it will change back to the traditional in-person examination.
This new format is accompanied by its own best prac-
tices—a few are detailed below.
Examinees will be required to complete a Candidate Technology Precheck Survey and a Candidate Technology Check. It is important to complete both the Survey and the Check on the device and in the location (home, ofce, etc.) where you will take the examination.
Prior to your exam time, complete your own test of the microphone to ensure function.
The Board currently uses an external proctoring and mon­itoring service for the online CE Examination to ensure examination security. Examinees are required to have a sec­ondary device available (such as a cellphone, tablet, or sec­ondary laptop) which is used to run remote proctor video feed. This feed monitors and records the environment for the duration of the examination.
Ensure that you optimize camera angle and lighting (avoid backlighting or overlighting). Utilize a computer webcam and place the computer on a xed surface, rather than hold­ing on a lap.
Select a neutral background. Your background should not be a conversation starter or icebreaker unlike the recommen­dation for application or job interviews.
Select a xed chair and minimize dgeting.
Your focus point should be chosen in advance to give a sense of focused condence. Choose the locations of your image and the examiners’ image such that you have a focused gaze.
Monitor your body language by intermittently referring to the live video of yourself. This can be done between ques­tions or examinations.
Practice - set up a Zoom or Teams conference with a friend or mentor. Record yourself. Play it back and watch yourself. Take note of how you answer, what you say, how you say it (speak slowly), how many times you say “umm” and “ahh,” your body language, and lighting.
Be condent in what you know (and condent in what you don’t).

Bibliography

Chen H, Tseng JF, Chaer R, Spain DA, Stewart JH 4th, Dent D,
Ibáñez B, Barry CL, Jones AT, Buyske J.Outcomes of the rst
virtual general surgery certifying exam of the American Board of
Surgery. Ann Surg. 2021;274(3):467–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000004988.
Smith ER, Clanahan JM, Hess A, et al. The advanced certify-
ing exam simulation-pro assessment instrument: evaluat-
ing surgical trainee examsmanship in virtual oral exams.
Global Surg Educ. 2023;2:30. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s44186- 023- 00107- 7.
The American Board of Surgery. Your guide to a successful oral exami-
nation [Video]. The American Board of Surgery; 2018. September
27. https://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?certce_video
M. S. Kamara (*) Colon & Rectal Surgery, Trinity Health Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 M. Neff et al. (eds.), Passing the General Surgery Oral Board Exam, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78244-2_143
503

Futile Care

MarcNe andJohnathanSadeh
144

Concept

It is unlikely that this would be an initial question on the oral board exam but could arise further into the questioning when you have already “passed” and the examiner is trying to get at your ethics and moral compass. Always be honest in your answers, thorough and complete. The examiner is always interested in your decision-making and if you are a “safe surgeon.”
Way Question May BeAsked?
“A 66-year-old female with BMI 19 and 55lb weight loss has an evaluation in the emergency department for abdomi­nal pain, nausea, and vomiting. The diagnostic testing included a CT scan which reveals an enhancing thickened stomach wall, with gastric outlet obstruction, ascites, and evidence for carcinomatosis.”
How toAnswer?
History
• Initially, the approach would be to discern the underlying surgical process. In this example, the questions would be regarding the suspected gastric malignancy.
• Risk factors for gastric cancer.
• Degree of weight loss (would they heal from a surgical intervention).
• Staging workup.
• Consideration of other malignancies that are potentially still treatable.
• Discussions with patient and family about futility:
– A focus on quality of life and previous level of
function.
– Does the patient have the mental capacity to make
decisions regarding their care? – Is there a living will? – What level of medical sophistication does the patient
have/family have? – What’s the prognosis? Days? Weeks? Months? – How painful will any intervention be? Will there be
any benet?
Physical Examination
• Evaluate nutritional status—thenar/temporalis muscle wasting.
• Pelvic examination for ovarian CA (i.e., which could still be treatable with carcinomatosis).
• Examine lymph node basins (i.e., Sister Mary Joseph node, Virchow’s node).
• Rectal exam (i.e., Blumer’s shelf).
Workup
• Full laboratory panel, tumor markers
• Additional imaging as needed
• Upper endoscopy (biopsy)
• Sampling ascitic uid by IR
• Biopsy of any palpable nodes
• (Goal here would be the least invasive test to make the diagnosis!)
M. Neff Department of Surgery, Jefferson Health of New Jersey, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA e-mail: Marc.Neff@jefferson.edu
J. Sadeh ( Department of Surgery, Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: Johnathan.Sadeh@jefferson.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 M. Neff et al. (eds.), Passing the General Surgery Oral Board Exam, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78244-2_144
*)

Treatment

Patient-Centered Approach:
• Focus on the patient’s values, goals, and quality of life.
505