Implementation of a Tele-urology Program for Outpatient Hematuria Referrals: Initial Results and Patient Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To report on results from a new tele-urology pathway for managing hematuria consults, including a survey of patient attitudes and satisfaction with such a program. Recent guideline changes have relaxed the definition of microscopic hematuria and may have significantly increased the number of hematuria evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred to the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center with hematuria were scheduled for a tele-urology clinic encounter utilizing a telephone call to obtain hematuria-related clinical information via a standardized algorithm. At subsequent cystoscopy, patients were evaluated with a 29-question survey regarding overall acceptance and satisfaction of the clinic (8 questions) and impact factors (21 questions). RESULTS: One hundred fifty veterans participated in the survey. Median time from consult request to appointment was 12 days and thereafter to cystoscopy was 16 days. Patients reported high acceptance and overall satisfaction with telephone evaluation; mean scores exceeded 9 out of 10 for overall satisfaction, efficiency, convenience, friendliness, care quality, understandability, privacy, and professionalism. When presented with a choice, nearly all patients (98%) preferred telephone-based encounters to face-to-face clinic visits. Underlying negative factors responsible for patients' preferences included transportation-related issues (97%) and logistical clinic issues (65%). Ninety-seven percent of patients reported high-quality evaluation. CONCLUSION: Patients report high acceptance and satisfaction with telephone clinics as a mechanism for expedited hematuria evaluation, primarily due to avoiding barriers related to transportation and clinical operations, as well as a perceived high quality of evaluation. Telephone appointments have potential to positively impact healthcare access and productivity.

The influence of transection site on the development of pancreatic fistula in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy: A review of 294 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fistula (PF) is a significant cause of morbidity in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP), with an incidence of 15-40%. It remains unclear if the location of pancreatic transection affects the rate of PF occurrence. This study examines the correlation between the transection site of the pancreas during DP and the incidence of PF. METHODS: All cases of DP from October 2005 to January 2012 were reviewed retrospectively from an institutional review board-approved database at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. The pancreatic transection location was determined by review of operative reports, and then dichotomized into 2 groups: neck/body or tail. PF were graded following the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula guidelines. RESULTS: During the study period, 294 DP were performed with 244 pancreas transections at the neck/body and 50 at the tail. Of the 294 patients, 52 (17.7%) developed a postoperative PF. The incidence of PF after transection at the tail of the pancreas was higher (28%) when compared with transection at the neck/body (15.6%; P = .04). When stratified by PF grade, grade A PF occurred more commonly when transection of the gland was at the tail (22% tail vs 8.2% neck/body; P = .007); however, no difference was found for grade B/C PF (6% tail vs 7.4% neck/body; P = 1). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that PF occurs more often when the tail is transected during DP, although the majority are low grade and of minimal clinical significance. More severe PF occurred equally between the transection sites.

Safety of perioperative aspirin therapy in pancreatic operations.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin is prevalent among patients presenting for operative treatment of pancreatic disorders. Operative practice has called for the cessation of aspirin 7-10 days before elective procedures because of the perceived increased risk of procedure-related bleeding. Our practice at Thomas Jefferson University has been to continue aspirin therapy throughout the perioperative period in patients undergoing elective pancreatic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Records for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, or total pancreatectomy between October 2005 and February 2012 were queried for perioperative aspirin use in this institutional research board-approved retrospective study. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata software. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,017 patients underwent pancreatic resection, of whom 289 patients (28.4%) were maintained on aspirin through the morning of the operation. Patients in the aspirin group were older than those not taking aspirin (median 69 years vs 62 years, P < .0001). The estimated intraoperative blood loss was similar between the two groups, aspirin versus no aspirin (median 400 mL vs 400 mL, P = .661), as was the rate of blood transfusion anytime during the index admission (29% vs 26%, P = 0.37) and the postoperative duration of hospital stay (median 7 days vs 6 days, P = .103). The aspirin group had a slightly increased rate of cardiovascular complications (10.1% vs 7.0%, P = .107), likely reflecting their increased cardiovascular comorbidities that led to their physicians recommending aspirin therapy. Rates of pancreatic fistula (15.1% vs 13.5%, P = .490) and hospital readmissions were similar (16.9% vs 14.9%, P = .451). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report that aspirin therapy is not associated with increased rates of perioperative bleeding, transfusion requirement, or major procedure related complications after elective pancreatic surgery. These data suggest that continuation of aspirin is safe and that the continuation of aspirin should be considered acceptable and preferable, particularly in patients with perceived substantial medical need for treatment with antiplatelet therapy.

Defining treatment and outcomes of hepaticojejunostomy failure following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The overall complication rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) approaches 50 %, with anastomotic failure being the most frequent cause of serious postoperative morbidity. Hepaticojejunostomy leaks (also called bile leaks) are the second most common type of leak, behind pancreaticojejunostomy leaks, yet have been the focus of only a single study as reported by Suzuki et al. (Hepatogastroenterology 50:254-257, 12). METHODS: We reviewed the recent experience with bile leaks at a single, high-volume pancreatic surgery center over a six-year time period. RESULTS: Bile leaks were identified in 16 out of 715 patients (2.2 %). Low preoperative albumin was associated with an increased risk. Bile leaks typically manifested within the first week after surgery as bilious drainage in a surgically placed drain. Associated warning signs included fever and leukocytosis. Patients with a bile leak frequently developed other complications, including a pancreatic fistula, wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, and sepsis. The impact on perioperative outcomes was comparable to patients with a pancreatic leak. A grading system is proposed based on the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula model. Grade A bile leaks were classified as those managed with prolonged drainage by operatively placed drains, grade B bile leaks with percutaneous abdominal drainage, and grade C bile leaks with insertion of a percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Hepaticojejunostomy leaks are rare after PD. The complication severity ranges from trivial to life threatening and is comparable overall to pancreaticojejunostomy leaks. Surgical intervention is rarely, if ever, required. With prompt and aggressive management, a full recovery can be expected.