Text Messaging, Telephone, or In-Person Outpatient Visit to the Surgical Clinic: A Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Routine outpatient follow-up visits for surgical patients are a source of strain on health-care resources and patients. With the COVID-19 pandemic adding a new urgency to finding the safest follow-up arrangement, text message follow-up might prove an acceptable alternative to a phone call or an in-person clinic visit. METHODS: An open-label, three-arm, parallel randomized trial was conducted. The interventions were traditional in-person appointment, a telephone call, or a text message. The primary outcome was the number of postdischarge complications identified. The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction with follow-up, future preference, default to follow-up, and preference to receiving medical information by text message. RESULTS: Two hundred eight patients underwent randomization: 50 in the in-person group, 80 in the telephone group, and 78 in the text message group. There was no difference in the number of reported complications: 5 (10%) patients in the in-person group, 7 (9%) patients in the text group, and 11 (14%) patients in the telephone group (P = 0.613). The preferred method of follow-up was by telephone (106, 61.6%). The least preferred was the in-person follow-up (15, 8.7%, P = 0.002), which also had the highest default rate (44%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that text messages and telephone calls are unsafe and ineffective methods of follow-up. Although most patients are happy to receive results by text message, the majority of patients would prefer a telephone follow-up and are less likely to default by this method. Health-care systems should develop telehealth initiatives when planning health-care services in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Transgastric Drainage for Esophageal Injuries: A Dynamic Strategy for a Heterogenous Patient Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal injury is a rare but potentially lethal surgical emergency. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality because of mediastinal contamination and difficulty of access. Surgery in such septic patients exacts a heavy physiological price, mandating consideration of more conservative measures. We review our experience with transgastric drainage for esophageal perforation and high-risk anastomotic dehiscence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A select cohort of patients presenting with esophageal perforation, or complex anastomotic leaks, over 10 years were considered for transgastric drainage (TGD). A modified 36F chest drainage tube was inserted by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy technique, either endoscopically or at open surgery, and a negative pressure (-10 cmH2O) was applied until the leak had sealed. Endpoints include, length of stay, restoration of gastrointestinal tract continuity and mortality. RESULTS: Of 14 patients treated, 10 had perforations and 4 had complex anastomotic leaks. Ten patients had drainage alone, while 4 required concomitant operative intervention. The median duration of drain insertion for those treated with TGD alone was 19.5 days. Complete restoration of gastrointestinal tract continuity was achieved in all patients. There was no procedure-related morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: These results show that TGD is a safe and effective management strategy. We advocate its use alone or as an adjunct to operative treatment for esophageal perforation or anastomotic leaks. This is the first report of completely endoscopic TGD for esophageal perforation.