Digital tools for ambulatory surgery patient surveillance and beyond .

Management of patients in ambulatory (or short stay) surgery relies on optimal organisation of the health care pathways and specific anesthesiology and surgical protocols. Postoperative medico-surgical complications can occur undetected by traditional hospital surveillance. This article identifies modern digital means that can be adapted to surveillance of patients at home: telephone calls or teleconferences, automatic messaging, mobile phone applications, Web platforms and other e-connected devices. For each, we detail their advantages and their limitations.

Large-scale implementation of enhanced recovery programs after surgery. A francophone experience.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery program (ERP) has now surpassed the stage of clinical research in certain specialties and currently poses the problematic of large-scale implementation. The goal of this study was to report the experience during the first year of implementation in three French-speaking countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective study in which 67 healthcare centers, all registered in the Grace-Audit databank, participated. Included were patients undergoing colorectal (CRS), bariatric (BS) and orthopedic hip and knee surgery (OS), performed within an ERP. The main endpoints were duration of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity, the degree of compliance with the elements of the ERP, the relation between the extent of application of the elements and postoperative hospital stay, and finally the completeness of data inclusions in the databank. RESULTS: A total of 1904 patients were included in the Grace-Audit databank between January 1, 2015 and January 31, 2016, undergoing CRS (n=490), BS (n=431), and OS (n=983). The mean implementation rate was 83.7±10.0% for CRS, 75.0±23.7% for BS, and 83.5±14.9% for OS. The duration of hospital stay was 6.5 days for CRS, 2.6 days for BS and 3.4 days for OS. Overall postoperative morbidity (onset of postoperative undesirable event), surgical morbidity (superficial or deep organ space surgical site complications such as bleeding, infection or defective healing) and readmission rates were 20.6%, 7.5%, and 5.7% for CRS; 2.5%, 1.4%, and 1.6% for BS and 2.9%, 0.2%, and 2% for OS, respectively. A statistically significant relationship was found between the degree of compliance of the elements of ERP and the duration of hospital stay for CRS and BS; hospital stay was reduced when at least 15 of the 22 elements of the program were applied (P<0.001). The patients included in the Grace-Audit databank represented less than 20% of the patients undergoing operation in the same establishments during the study period for all three specialties. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that large-scale ERPs are feasible and safe in French-speaking countries. Nonetheless, although encouraging, these preliminary results highlight that implementation must be improved in specialties such as bariatric surgery and that more complete data collection is needed.

Previous gastric banding increases morbidity and gastric leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity.

GOAL: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is performed in certain circumstances after failure of gastric banding. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of first-line gastric banding on the morbidity associated with secondary LSG for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The case records of 102 consecutive patients undergoing LSG were studied retrospectively. The technique of LSG was standardized. Two groups were compared: one with patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding (n = 31) and the second, with patients having undergone first-line LSG (n = 71). Endpoints were overall morbidity and intra/postoperative complications including gastric leaks consecutive to staple line disruption as well as other septic or hemorrhagic complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to detect independent risk factors for morbidity. RESULTS: Overall morbidity was significantly higher in patients having undergone LSG after first-line gastric banding compared with those undergoing first-line LSG (32.2% vs. 7%, P = 0.002). Gastric leaks secondary to staple line disruption also occurred statistically significantly more often in patients with first-line gastric banding (16.1% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.043). Waiting 6 months between gastric band removal and performing LSG did not prevent the increased morbidity compared with first-line LSG. Multivariable analysis revealed that among the factors analyzed (age, gender, comorbidity, body mass index, surgeon, first-line gastric banding), the only independent risk factor for staple line disruption was first-line gastric banding with an odds ratio = 6.6 (95% confidence interval = [1.2-36.3]). CONCLUSION: Undergoing first-line gastric banding increases the risk of complications after secondary LSG. We recommend that patients who undergo LSG after a first-line gastric banding should be warned of the increased risks of morbidity or, alternatively, that LSG be performed preferentially as the initial procedure.

Failure of a meta-analysis on the role of elective surgery for left colonic diverticulitis in young patients.

BACKGROUND: The timing of elective surgery of colonic diverticulitis in young patients remains controversial. The present meta-analysis aimed to answer the question whether these patients should be operated after the first attack or, more classically, after the second attack. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for papers reporting the results of surgery according to the strategies. Major endpoint was the performance of a colostomy (during unplanned surgery or for anastomotic dehiscence complicating elective surgery). RESULTS: Fifteen papers were selected for potential inclusion in the meta-analysis. But, eventually, only three papers gave information about the timing of surgery. Pooling the data of these 3 studies showed that 160 patients underwent elective surgery after the first attack and only 5 patients underwent subsequent emergent surgery at the course of their disease. Hence, no meta-analysis could be performed. CONCLUSION: Researchers should no longer attempt (like us) to answer this question by any meta-analysis. The failure of the present meta-analysis highlights the limitations of evidence-based surgery in some particular fields.