ABSTRACT
Introduction: After COVID-19, telehealth (TH) capabilities expanded relaying patient satisfaction, time savings, and efficient access to care. We hypothesize standardized TH scheduling processes improves TH utilization without increasing adverse events (AE). Method(s): The Telehealth Utilization Quality Improvement Initiative was conducted from 8/2021-1/2022 in the general surgery clinic. 50 visits pre-implementation and 70 visits post-implementation were audited over the study period. Stakeholders were engaged including faculty, clinic coordinators, and administrative staff to identify current workflows and potential interventions, targeting outpatient elective procedures. Process mapping outlined current TH scheduling workflows. Outcomes such as percent TH scheduled in clinic, in addition to cost, and adverse patient events were collected post-implementation. Result(s): Preliminary data revealed 50 patients who underwent elective outpatient surgeries, all appropriate for TH postoperative follow-up visits. Overall, the pre-implementation TH scheduling rate was 32%. TH was schedule dafter surgery in the preintervention group. The intervention required TH postoperative appointments to be scheduled in clinic at the time of surgery scheduling with TH being the default postsurgical appointment for a standardized list of eligible procedures. After implementation, 95% of patients undergoing elective, outpatient general surgery procedures were scheduled for a TH visit with 83% of patients completing their follow up via TH.This resulted in increased revenue of $30,431 in billable visits due to increased clinic visit availability. No AE were seen. Conclusion(s): Standardizing TH scheduling based on procedure improves the utilization of TH in outpatient, elective general surgery procedures resulting in improved clinic efficiency, increased revenue, and no AE.
ABSTRACT
Outpatient treatment of the abdominal wall hernia. A strategy to reduce the impact of the Covid-19 AIM: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of the treatment of abdominal wall hernias in ambulatory setting in selected patients to break down long waiting lists due to the COVID 19 pandemic.METHODS: From February to June 2021, we performed 120 hernia repair operations with local anesthesia in ambulatory settings without anesthetists. (105 inguinal hernia, 6 femoral hernia and 9 umbilical hernia). All patients were selected from our waiting lists first through a telephone interview through an adequate collection of the anamnesis and then clinically (LEE index and ASA score) and based on the characteristics of the hernia.RESULTS: For all patients, the operation was performed under local anesthesia with lidocaine and naropine. Lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair were performed for all patients with inguinal hernia;polypropylene mesh-plug was the technique used to repair the crural hernias while a direct plastic was performed for the treatment of umbilical hernias.. The mean age was 58 years. We did not observe any intraoperative complications and patients were discharged after 4 hours of operation. There was no case of readmission. Only 3 (2.5%) patients developed scrotal bruising. We did not observe any other complications or recurrence at 30 days and 6 months. Most patients (97.5%) expressed satisfaction for local anesthesia and for the path created.CONCLUSION: Hernia pathologies could be treated in ambulatory setting with good results in selected patients and could represent an alternative to face the limitations imposed by the COVID pandemic on daily surgical activities.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The effect of COVID-19 infection on post-operative mortality and the optimal timing to perform ambulatory surgery from diagnosis date remains unclear in this population. Our study was to determine whether a history of COVID-19 diagnosis leads to a higher risk of all-cause mortality following ambulatory surgery. METHODS: This cohort constitutes retrospective data obtained from the Optum dataset containing 44,976 US adults who were tested for COVID-19 up to 6 months before surgery and underwent ambulatory surgery between March 2020 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality between the COVID-19 positive and negative patients grouped according to the time interval from COVID-19 testing to ambulatory surgery, called the Testing to Surgery Interval Mortality (TSIM) of up to 6 months. Secondary outcome included determining all-cause mortality (TSIM) in time intervals of 0-15 days, 16-30 days, 31-45 days, and 46-180 days in COVID-19 positive and negative patients. RESULTS: 44,934 patients (4297 COVID-19 positive, 40,637 COVID-19 negative) were included in our analysis. COVID-19 positive patients undergoing ambulatory surgery had higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to COVID-19 negative patients (OR = 2.51, p < 0.001). The increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 positive patients remained high amongst patients who had surgery 0-45 days from date of COVID-19 testing. In addition, COVID-19 positive patients who underwent colonoscopy (OR = 0.21, p = 0.01) and plastic and orthopedic surgery (OR = 0.27, p = 0.01) had lower mortality than those underwent other surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: A COVID-19 positive diagnosis is associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality following ambulatory surgery. This mortality risk is greatest in patients that undergo ambulatory surgery within 45 days of testing positive for COVID-19. Postponing elective ambulatory surgeries in patients that test positive for COVID-19 infection within 45 days of surgery date should be considered, although prospective studies are needed to assess this.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , COVID-19 Testing , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Background: Many EP procedures are moving from the hospital to the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) outpatient setting. The COVID-19 pandemic and the CMS Hospitals Without Walls (HWW) program has been an impetus in accelerating this transition. Anesthesia provider perioperative management is critical in facilitating safe procedures with rapid, same-day discharge. Our EP-dedicated 2-OR ASC completed more than 3,000 procedures and more than 500 left-sided ablations utilizing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation with same-day discharge. To our knowledge, this experience is unique within an ASC setting in both volume and complexity. Objective(s): We present our comprehensive anesthesia strategy and lessons learned to facilitate safe, efficient procedures and discharge in an EP ASC. Method(s): A nurse anesthesiologist with more than a decade of EP-dedicated experience developed and taught a perioperative anesthesia strategy to facilitate high volume, safe and quick discharge care. Fundamental to this is the avoidance of opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Propofol or general anesthesia with sevoflurane and complete reversal with sugammadex allow for quick recovery. Mandatory video laryngoscope utilization minimizes airway trauma, while liberal antiemetic use eliminates most nausea. All femoral access is device closed. Positive inotropes are used liberally during anesthetic to avoid heart failure. The goal is to deliver all patients to PACU on room air with stable hemodynamics. Anesthesia providers manage the preop and recovery area. Result(s): More than 90% of all patients undergoing general anesthesia and heparinization for left-atrial ablation were discharged home in under 3 hours. Nearly all procedures not requiring femoral access were discharged within 30-60 minutes. High procedure volumes with efficiencies far exceeding our in-hospital experience were thus facilitated with improved patient safety. Since HWW began, five patients have required transfer to the hospital without any deaths. All others were discharged same day. Conclusion(s): We suggest that a dedicated anesthesia team with a tailored perioperative anesthesia plan facilitates performing nearly all EP-related surgical procedures in an ASC. This success is facilitated by appropriate patient selection, preoperative evaluation, intraoperative care prioritizing quick return to baseline, and end-to-end anesthesia perioperative management. We believe this type of anesthesia management is critical to the transition of EP procedures to ASCs.Copyright © 2023
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Research demonstrates the benefits of robotic-assisted prostatectomies (RARP) in regard to blood loss and post-operative recovery, there is a paucity in the literature regarding RARP as an outpatient procedure. With minimal operating room capacity during COVID-19, advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques and a relatively healthy patient population, outpatient RARP may be feasible. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of RARP as a same day outpatient procedure. METHOD(S): A retrospective cohort study at a single institution was performed by four fellowship trained surgeons who routinely perform RARP. Patients were identified through billing records who underwent RARP between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were divided into two cohorts, inpatient (one stay past midnight) and outpatient (defined as same day surgery with no stay past midnight). Individual surgeons admission necessity during COVID-19 limitations. We then extracted data using the electronic health record (EHR). The two groups were then compared using standard statistical methods for cohort studies. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. RESULT(S): Over a two-year period, a total of 497 RARP were performed with 139 (28%) outpatient cases. There was no difference in baseline demographics between the cohorts. There was a statistically significant difference in estimated blood loss (142 vs 102 mLs, p>=0.001) and operative time (193 vs 180 mins, p=0.004) in the inpatient vs outpatient cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in cancer stage, prostate size, or node/margin positivity between cohorts. There was a higher rate of readmissions (5% vs 0%, p=0.007) and number of ED presentations (0.15 vs 0.05, p=0.019) in the inpatient group. There was no difference in complication rates between the groups. Importantly, there was no significant difference in burden on the clinical staff demonstrated by no difference in number of phone calls to clinic, number of EHR messages, or opioid prescriptions on discharge. CONCLUSION(S): Overall, our data suggests that in a well selected patient group, RARP can safely be performed as an outpatient procedure with no significant differences on clinic staff workload or oncologic outcomes. While there was no pre-defined "algorithm" to determine outpatient vs inpatient surgery, the similarity in demographics and pre-operative characteristics between the groups lends support to performing this procedure as an outpatient with inpatient admission being reserved for select patients.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy lengths of stay decreased with ketorolac analgesia and adoption of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the transition to outpatient RARP freed up critically needed hospital beds. The healthcare cost reduction afforded by the shift to outpatient RARP and its effect on patient satisfaction has yet to be explored. We compared healthcare costs, patient satisfaction and complications for outpatient vs. inpatient RARP. METHOD(S): We identified and compared a series of consecutive RARP performed as outpatient vs. inpatient and determined the capacity cost rate for every resource, including personnel, equipment, and space. After the lifting of hospital restrictions, men were given the option of inpatient vs. outpatient RARP. We also administered a validated Patient Satisfaction Outcome Questionnaire (PSOQ) postoperatively and compared median scores in perceived outcomes and satisfaction. A time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) analysis was applied to compare the total costs of care for RARP performed. Finally, we captured complications within 30 days of surgery using the Clavien-Dindo classification. We used multivariable regression to adjust for age, race, BMI, and ASA classification to assess the impact of outpatient vs. inpatient RARP on complications. RESULT(S): There were no significant differences in patient characteristics for outpatient (n=145) vs. inpatient (n=80) RARP. When given the choice, 86.6% of men elected for outpatient vs. inpatient RARP. Outpatient RARP netted a $1387 (13.5%) cost reduction compared to inpatient RARP. There were no significant differences in outpatient vs. inpatient median satisfaction survey scores or complications within 30 days (11.0% vs. 11.3%, p=0.961). CONCLUSION(S): Outpatient RARP can be safely performed, with similar outcomes and compared to inpatient RARP. Outpatient RARP has significantly lower costs compared to inpatient RARP while maintaining similar patient satisfaction outcomes.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In 2016 we began offering optional same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic prostatectomy (RP) patients with increasing acceptance that accelerated during the COVID pandemic. Our resulting 98% SDD rate for RP after COVID facilitated initiation of an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) robotic urology program without overnight capability and planned SDD in all patients. We assessed our outcomes with planned outpatient RP in all patients in both the hospital and ASC settings. METHOD(S): We reviewed one year of consecutive RPs performed by a single surgeon at either a free-standing ASC or one of three hospitals between October 2021-October 2022. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in all patients. Assignment to ASC versus hospital RP was based primarily on insurance eligibility. ASC policy for robotic or non-robotic procedures alike excluded history of severe cardiac disease, difficult airway, malignant hyperthermia, or BMI >45kg/m2 with no additional limitations applied to robotic surgery. All patients were instructed to expect same-day discharge (SDD) directly from the recovery room regardless of ASC or hospital location with overnight stay only for unexpected complications or side effects of anesthesia. RESULT(S): Among 359 RP cases (162 ASC and 197 hospital), 356 (99%) were successfully discharged the same day as surgery with 3 overnight stays in the hospital group and none in the ASC group. Patients in the ASC group were younger (61.4yrs vs 67.1yrs, p<001) with no statistically-significant difference in BMI (29.2 kg/m2 vs 29.3 kg/ m2, p=0.3), preoperative Gleason Score (p=0.1), operative time (131min vs 134min, p=0.2) or blood loss (87.5cc vs 84.8cc, p=0.71). Excluding the three overnight patients in the hospital group, the mean postoperative recovery room stay among SDD patients was shorter in the ASC group (1.7hrs vs 2.3hrs, p<0.0001). The 90-day readmission rate was 2.5% in both groups (4/162 and 5/197, p=0.93). No readmissions occurred within 24 hours of surgery and only one within the first week. CONCLUSION(S): Same day discharge as a routine following robotic prostatectomy is feasible and safe with readmission rates no higher than series with overnight stays. SDD may enable ASC RP when overnight stay capabilities are not available at an ASC with minimal risk of need for hospital transfer.
ABSTRACT
Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of ambulatory surgeries and ambulatory patients presenting with substance use disorder were increasing, and the end of lockdown has further catalyzed the increasing rates of ambulatory patients presenting for surgery with substance use disorder (SUD). Certain subspecialty groups of ambulatory procedures have already established protocols to optimize early recovery after surgery (ERAS), and these groups have subsequently enjoyed improved efficiency and reduced adverse outcomes as a result. In this present investigation, we review the literature as it relates to substance use disorder patients, with a particular focus on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and their resulting impact on the acute- or chronic user ambulatory patient. The systematic literature review findings are organized and summarized. We conclude by identifying areas of opportunity for further study, specifically with the aim of developing a dedicated ERAS protocol for substance use disorder patients in the ambulatory surgery setting. - Healthcare in the USA has seen an increase in rates of both substance use disorder patients and separately in ambulatory surgery cases. - Specific perioperative protocols to optimize outcomes for patients who suffer from substance use disorder have been described in recent years. - Agents of interest like opioids, cannabis, and amphetamines are the top three most abused substances in North America. - A protocol and recommend further work should be done to integrate with concrete clinical data, in which strategies should be employed to confer benefits to patient outcomes and hospital quality metrics like those enjoyed by ERAS protocol in other settings.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Enhanced Recovery After Surgery , Humans , Pain Management/methods , Pandemics , Communicable Disease Control , Postoperative Complications , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
The updated General Medical Council (GMC) guidance on consent (2020) states that 'decision making is an ongoing process focused on meaningful dialogue: the exchange of relevant information specific to the individual patient'. In the UK there are several barriers to this process in dermatology, including short clinic appointments and loss of continuity of care (the surgeon may not have seen the patient in clinic). Many barriers have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic with the additional challenges of telephone consultations. In light of the GMC guidance we conducted a survey to see what patients recalled of their clinic discussion prior to surgery. Seventy-six responses were received over 2 weeks from patients attending day surgery. The results showed that although the majority of patients received an information sheet on skin surgery there were significant inconsistencies in what was discussed in clinic with regard to alternative options, risks and benefits of surgery and the likely repair. We addressed the problem of inadequate preparation for complex surgery by implementing a new process for patients awaiting Mohs surgery. A senior registrar on the Mohs team contacted patients by telephone 2-3 days before surgery. During the telephone call the process of Mohs surgery, the risks and benefits (including the risk of attending the department during the COVID-19 pandemic), and alternative options to Mohs were discussed. The repair options were discussed in detail. Patients were also advised on transport, provision of victuals, postoperative wound care and the potential necessity of future appointments. The telephone calls lasted 5-12 min (average 6 min 48 s). When patients attended for surgery they were asked to complete a patient survey to evaluate their telephone consultation. Seventeen responses were received from the second survey over 2 weeks. Fifteen patients recalled alternative options to Mohs surgery being discussed prior to attending surgery and 15 recalled the risks of surgery being discussed. All patients recalled discussing the potential options for repair, and all patients felt that they had received adequate information prior to attending their surgical appointment. On a scale of 1-5 (1 being very uncertain and 5 being very confident) patients were asked to rate their confidence in the procedure after their telephone call with the surgeon. The majority rated 5 (n = 13), three scored 4 and one scored 2. Shared decisionmaking and fully informed consent is critical to effective patient care. It is particularly important prior to complex skin surgery such as Mohs, and patients should have the opportunity to discuss their procedure with a Mohs specialist before surgery. We demonstrated that a telephone call before surgery is an effective and time-efficient method that ensures patients are fully informed and increases their confidence in the procedure.
ABSTRACT
Background: We aimed to evaluate the role of plasma fibrinogen and D-dimer as prognostic biomarkers in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Method(s): The prospective study included 35 patients (30 males) with newly diagnosed NMIBC with no history of thromboembolic event or anti-coagulant intake or active infection and underwent complete trans-urethral resection between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with deranged hepato-renal functions, refractory hypertension or diagnosed with COVID-19 infection with in one-month before surgery or routine follow-up were excluded. Follow-up was done as per NCCN guidelines. Fibrinogen and D-dimer levels were measured with in seven days of surgery or follow-up and analyzed for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cox regression analyses were adopted to assess the influence of these two parameters on RFS and PFS. Result(s): The mean age was 53.9 years with a median follow-up of 9-months. Nine had recurrence of which six had progression. The cut-off values of fibrinogen and D-dimer were 402.5 mg/dl and 0.55 microg/ml, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that high fibrinogen and D-dimer levels were significantly related to poor RFS and PFS (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis only fibrinogen and D-dimer retained their significance for RFS (p = 0.026 and 0.014, respectively) and PFS (p = 0.027 and 0.042, respectively). High levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer were also present in patients who had recurrence or progression at follow-up visits compared to rest of the patients. Conclusion(s): High levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer may indicate worse prognosis in patients with NMIBC, suggesting that these two can be used as prognostic biomarkers.Copyright © 2023, The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is one of the most frequent surgeries in the world. It is a very safe procedure mostly performed under topical anesthesia in outpatients centers. Due to the growing lack of anesthesiologists, cataract surgeries are more frequently performed without an anesthesiologist present in the operating room. Although extremely rare, life-threatening complications may occur. CASES PRESENTATION: We report two cases of cataract surgery complicated by severe hypotension that required emergency resuscitation in the immediate postoperative period and hospitalization in intensive care unit. Anaphylactic shock was confirmed in the first case and suspected in the second. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: Even though cataract surgery is a very safe procedure, it is essential to ensure the presence of an anesthesiologist to manage potential, though extremely rare, life-threatening complications such as anaphylactic reactions.
Subject(s)
Cataract Extraction , Cataract , Hypotension , Humans , Anesthetics, Local , Anesthesia, Local/methods , Cataract Extraction/adverse effects , Cataract Extraction/methods , Postoperative Period , Hypotension/etiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The positive benefits of immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction (IPBR) are incontrovertible. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care resources became scarce. The implementation of outpatient immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction (OIPBR) can improve the efficiency of medical care and reduce viral exposure. Very few studies have focused on OIPBR and this study aimed to fill this gap by evaluating outcomes of OIPBR compared with traditional hospitalization IPBR (THIPBR) in terms of complications and quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study enrolled patients undergoing IPBR at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between January 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021. Outcomes were defined as postoperative complications and quality of life before reconstruction and at 3-month follow-up. Quality of life was assessed by BREAST-Q questionnaire. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score matching (PSM) were applied to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were enrolled, including 110 with THIPBR and 25 with OIPBR. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. Patients with OIPBR had lower rates of lymphedema on the surgery side (p = 0.041) and readmission (p = 0.040) than patients with THIPBR. No statistically significant differences in the quality of life metrics of psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, satisfaction with breast and physical well-being of the chest were found between the two groups. CONCLUSION: OIPBR is a safe and efficient alternative to THIBPR during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is recommended when medical conditions allow to conserve medical resources. Accelerated technical training for the performance of OIPBR at the hospital level should be expedited. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The second COVID-19 wave severely limited access to elective surgery. METHODS: Between December 2020 and May 2021, 530 patients underwent a procedure in the elective ambulatory unit (EAU), a walk-in and walk-out model of surgery, and we used a prepandemic cohort of day-case patients for comparison. RESULTS: We have had no confirmed cases of COVID-19 transmission on-site. The infection rate for EAU and day-case units for carpal tunnel decompression was 1.36% and 2%, respectively, and this difference was not significant, P = .696. Patient satisfaction was excellent at 9.8 of 10. The waiting time from primary care referral to carpal tunnel decompression was cut from 36 weeks to 12 weeks during the study period. Significant benefit in efficiency and cost saving was also found. CONCLUSION: Elective ambulatory unit provides a template to perform high-volume low-complexity hand and wrist surgery in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Since the start of the COVID-9 pandemic, inpatient hospital resources have become extremely limited. This has limited access to surgical care for patients, especially for elective surgeries. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery has been known to be very safe with very low rates of serious complications but has typically been accompanied with an inpatient hospital stay. Performing DBS surgery as an outpatient procedure could preserve access to this important treatment option, even during medical scarcity. Methods From March 2020 to January of 2021, stage I DBS surgery was scheduled as outpatient surgery for 19 patients. DBS patients who were scheduled as inpatient admissions were included as a comparison. Cohorts were compared based on time until discharge, early surgical complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, as well as demographic patient characteristics. Results Eighteen patients underwent a DBS scheduled as an outpatient surgery were compared to 20 patients who were scheduled as inpatient surgeries. Only 1 patient scheduled as an outpatient surgery was admitted overnight. This was due to an asymptomatic hemorrhage seen on routine post op imaging. There were no significant differences between readmissions, ED visits, or complications between the groups. In the outpatient surgery group, there were 2 post op ED visits and no admissions. There were no symptomatic hemorrhages, surgical site infections, readmissions, or reoperations in the outpatient group. The post op admission time for the two groups was 3.72h (+/-1.11) vs 26.83h (+/-3.49) (p<0.0001). Conclusion Outpatient DBS surgery does not result in increases in readmissions or emergency visits. This could allow increased availability of DBS surgery during times of medical scarcity and lower the economic barriers to DBS surgery..
ABSTRACT
During the spring of 2020, as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections rapidly spread across the globe, all sectors of healthcare, everywhere, would change in ways that were unimaginable. Early on, the ambulatory surgery space, being no exception, would suffer deep and impactful reductions in patient volume and revenue. Though actual care stoppages were short-lived, decreased ambulatory surgical patient volumes continued for a myriad of reasons, though in some cases, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) provided surgical care in limited numbers to patients who were "offloaded” from inpatient lists. Released on March 24, 2020, herein, we address the key perioperative issues as they relate to COVID-19 and ambulatory surgery including the many complexities and challenges of a new and rapidly changing virus, the impact of viral infection and vaccine development on perioperative outcomes, key ambulatory surgical approaches to COVID-19-related patient and staff safety, and finally, managing issues related to both supply chain (personal protective equipment (PPE) and other necessary equipment) and facility staffing. © 2022 Elsevier Ltd
ABSTRACT
Regional anaesthesia (RA) has an important and ever-expanding role in ambulatory surgery. Specific practices vary depending on the preferences and resources of the anaesthesia team and hospital setting. It is used for various purposes, including as primary anaesthetic technique for surgery but also as postoperative analgesic modality. The limited duration of action of currently available local anaesthetics limits their application in postoperative pain control and enhanced recovery. The search for the holy grail of regional anaesthetics continues. Current evidence suggests that a peripheral nerve block performed with long-acting local anaesthetics in combination with intravenous or perineural dexamethasone gives the longest and most optimal sensory block. In this review, we outline some possible blocks for ambulatory surgery and additives to perform RA. Moreover, we give an update on local anaesthesia drugs and adjuvants, paediatric RA in ambulatory care and discuss the impact of RA by COVID-19. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd
ABSTRACT
Limited hospital resources and access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to implement a quality-improvement study investigating the feasibility, safety, and costs of same-day discharge after PCNL. The outcomes of 53 consecutive first-look PCNL patients included in a same-day discharge protocol during COVID-19 were compared to 54 first-look PCNL patients admitted for overnight observation. Control group had a similar comorbidity profile. Demographics, operative details, 30 day outcomes and readmissions, complications, and cost were compared between the two groups. Same-day discharge and one-day admission post-PCNL patients did not have significantly different baseline characteristics. The study group were more likely to have mini-PCNL (81% vs 50%, p < 0.01). Operative characteristics including median pre-operative stone burden (1.4 vs 1.7 cm3, p = 0.47) and post-operative stone burden (0.14 vs 0.18 cm3, p = 0.061) were similar between the two groups. Clavien-Dindo complication rates were lower in the study group compared to controls (0 vs 7%, p = 0.045). Readmission rates (2 vs 4%, p = 0.569) and ED visits (4 vs 6%, p = 0.662) were similar between the two groups. Total cost ($6,648.92 vs $9,466.07, p < 0.01) was significantly lower and operating margin ($4,475.96 vs $1,742.16, p < 0.01) was significantly higher for the same-day discharge group. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be performed in select patients without an increase in short-term complications, ED visits, or readmissions. Patients undergoing mini-PCNL are particularly amenable to same-day discharge, however, standard PCNL patients should not be excluded from consideration. Avoiding overnight admission decreases total cost and increased hospital operating margin.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Calculi , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous , Humans , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/adverse effects , Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/methods , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/etiology , Kidney Calculi/surgery , Kidney Calculi/etiology , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous/adverse effects , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous/methods , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare delivery worldwide. Resource limitations prompted a multicenter quality initiative to enhance outpatient sleeve gastrectomy workflow and reduce the inpatient hospital burden. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of this initiative, as well as the safety of outpatient sleeve gastrectomy and potential risk factors for inpatient admission. SETTING: A retrospective analysis of sleeve gastrectomy patients was conducted from February 2020 to August 2021. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were adult patients discharged on postoperative day 0, 1, or 2. Exclusion criteria were body mass index ≥60 kg/m2 and age ≥65 years. Patients were divided into outpatient and inpatient cohorts. Demographic, operative, and postoperative variables were compared, as well as monthly trends in outpatient versus inpatient admission. Potential risk factors for inpatient admission were assessed, as well as early Clavien-Dindo complications. RESULTS: Analysis included 638 sleeve gastrectomy surgeries (427 outpatient, 211 inpatient). Significant differences between cohorts were age, co-morbidities, surgery date, facility, operative duration, and 30-day emergency department (ED) readmission. Monthly frequency of outpatient sleeve gastrectomy rose as high as 71% regionally. An increased number of 30-day ED readmissions was found for the inpatient cohort (P = .022). Potential risk factors for inpatient admission included age, diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, pre-COVID-19 surgery date, and operative duration. CONCLUSION: Outpatient sleeve gastrectomy is safe and efficacious. Administrative support for extended postanesthesia care unit recovery was critical to successful protocol implementation for outpatient sleeve gastrectomy within this large multicenter healthcare system, demonstrating potential applicability nationwide.
Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , COVID-19 , Laparoscopy , Obesity, Morbid , Adult , Humans , Aged , Outpatients , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics , Bariatric Surgery/adverse effects , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Gastrectomy/methods , Laparoscopy/methods , Obesity, Morbid/complications , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Currently, AVFs are created by vascular surgeons urologists and nephrologists. Nephrologists may be better placed to create AVFs and conduct follow-up as they re well versed with the usage of AVF. AIM OF THE STUDY: This observational prospective study aims to find the outcome of AVFs created by nephrologists over two years in a tertiary level hospital. METHOD(S): All the patients in whom an AVF was created by nephrologists between March 2020 and August 2022 were included. On the day of surgery vitals were recorded and vein mapping was done. Side-to-side anastomosis with 6-0 proline between artery and vein were performed under local anesthesia in a single sitting. Patients were observed for post-op complications. During the COVID-19 pandemic, RT PCR was only performed in suspected in suspected patients indentified during screening. All patients staff and surgeons wore N-95 masks in addition to usual sterile measures. Patients were followed up at 6th week and 12th week post-AVF construction to do clinical examination and evaluate blood flow diameter of AVF by high-quality Doppler. Patients were asked to use AVF for dialysis after 6th week of creation after they have matured. AVF maturation was defined radiologically as a combination of blood flow of 600 ml/min and diameter of 6 mm or more and clinically usable. Else it was considered immature. Primary failure was defined as AVFs that had not matured till 12th week of creation. All the data were analyzed by appropriate statistical tools using the SPSS software RESULTS: A total of 1323 fistulae (including 376 during COVID-19 pandemic) were created in 1102 patients. Of them 928 (84.21%) were males, and 537 (48.72%) of the patients were having underlying diabetes mellitus. A total of 1008 (76.19%) were radio-cephalic while 262 (19.8%), 19 (1.43%) were brachio-cephalic, and brachio-basilic respectively. 1013 (76.56%) fistulae were left sided. 944 (85.66%) were already on hemodialysis while 158 (14.33%) were planned for elective initiation after fistula maturation. Of the 1102 patients, 150 patients required fistula creation twice, 17 patients thrice, and 4 patients underwent fistula creation four times. Out of 556 (50.45%) patients who completed three months follow-up, 65 patients (11.69%) expired. Primary failure was observed in 107 (19.21%) fistulae and 24 (4.30%) patients developed local site infection. 8 (1.43%) and 4 (0.71%) patients developed fistula rupture and aneurysms respectively requiring admission for AVF closure. Mean AVF blood flow and diameter were 674.92 +/- 317.40 and 5.42 +/- 1.33 at 6th week and 983.60 +/- 289.41 and 9.36 +/- 54.58 at 12th week respectively. During the COVID-19 pandemic, out of 376, 15 (7.1%) patients were found to be COVID-19 positive during follow-up, and only 2 out of 18 staff and 4 nephrologists were found to COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSION(S): Nephrologists are well positioned to create AVFs successfully. However, collaboration with vascular surgeons and radiologists will further improve the success rate and management of complications. AVF creation is safe during pandemics and should be continued.