Surgeon volumes: preserving appropriate surgical outcomes in higher-risk patient populations undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognized that complex abdominal wall reconstruction (cAWR) necessitates specialized training. No studies have been conducted to assess whether a volume-outcomes relationship is present in cAWR. We sought to determine if outcomes for patients undergoing cAWR varied based on surgeon volume among participants in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC). METHODS: All patients with ventral hernias undergoing elective cAWR with component separation (lateral component release) were selected from ACHQC database. Surgeons were ranked based on annual number of cAWR procedures performed and then grouped in tertiles. Patient characteristics, hernia risk factors, operative details, and 30-days outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 9206 patients were identified, of which 310 (3.4%), 723 (7.9%) and 8173 (88.7%) cAWRs were performed by low (105 surgeons), medium (49) and high-volume (66) surgeons, respectively. Patients operated upon by high-volume surgeons tended to have more comorbidities and higher ASA class (72.5% of class ≥ III, vs 53.5%). Hernia characteristics demonstrated that high-volume surgeons more commonly operated on patients presenting with recurrent hernias (50.2% vs 42%), wider hernias (13.5 cm vs 10.5 cm), associated ostomies (13% vs 3.6%), and prior of surgical site infections (32% vs 26%, P = 0.035). High-volume surgeons more commonly performed posterior component separation procedures (92% vs 84%), utilized permanent mesh (92% vs 88%), and placed mesh in sublay position. In spite of operating on more advanced hernias, high-volume surgeons achieved comparable rates (all P > 0.4) of 30-day surgical site infections (SSI: 6.9% vs 7.1%) and surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSO-PI: 8.9% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: High-volume surgeons maintain comparable outcomes following cAWR despite performing operations on patients with more comorbidities and advanced hernia disease. These findings should be integrated into the debates related to regionalizing abdominal wall reconstruction procedures among high-volume surgeons.

Bedside vs webside: Assessing patient-reported experiences for in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Though telemedicine has been identified as safe and feasible, data on patient reported experiences (PREs) are lacking. We sought to compare PREs between in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative care. METHODS: Patients evaluated from August-November 2021 were prospectively surveyed to assess experiences and satisfaction with care rendered during in-person and telemedicine-based encounters. Patient and hernia characteristics, encounter related plans, and PREs were compared between in-person and telemedicine-based care. RESULTS: Of 109 respondents (86% response rate), 55% (n = 60) utilized telemedicine-based perioperative care. Indirect costs were lower for patients using telemedicine-based services, including work absence (3% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), lost wages (0% vs. 14%, P = 0.003), and requirements for hotel accommodations (0% vs. 12%, P = 0.007). PREs related to telemedicine-based care were non-inferior to in-person care across all measured domains (P > 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine-based care yields significant cost-savings over in-person care with similar patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that systems should focus on optimization of perioperative telemedicine services.

Perioperative Telemedicine Utilization Among Geriatric Patients Being Evaluated for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction and Hernia Repair.

Introduction: Perioperative telemedicine services have increasingly been utilized for ambulatory care, although concerns exist regarding the feasibility of virtual consultations for older patients. We sought to review telemedicine encounters for geriatric patients evaluated at a hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction center. Methods: A retrospective review of telemedicine encounters between May 2020 and May 2021 was performed. Patient characteristics and encounter-specific outcomes were compared among geriatric (older than65 years old) and nongeriatric patients. Clinical care plans for encounters were reviewed to determine potential downstream care utilization. Patient-derived benefits related to time saved in travel time was calculated using geo-mapping. Outcomes for postoperative encounters were assessed to determine if complication rates differed between geriatric and nongeriatric populations. Results: A total of 313 telemedicine encounters (geriatric: 41.9%) were conducted among 251 patients. Reviewing preoperative factors for hernia care, geriatric patients presented with higher rates of recurrent or incisional hernias (87.9% vs. 70.7%, p < 0.01). Potential travel time was longer for geriatric patients (104 min vs. 42 min, p = 0.03) in the preoperative setting. No differences in clinical care plans were found. Only 8.6% of preoperative encounters resulted in recommendations for supplemental in-person evaluation. Operative plans were coordinated for 42.5% of all preoperative telemedicine encounters. There was no difference in complication rate between geriatric and nongeriatric patients (p > 0.05) in the postoperative setting, with no complications directly attributable to telemedicine-based care. Conclusions: Telemedicine-based evaluations appear to function well among geriatric patients seeking hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction. Clinical care plans rendered following telemedicine-based encounters are appropriate with a low rate of supplemental in-person evaluations. Telemedicine use resulted in significantly more time saved in commuting to and from clinic for geriatric patients.

Patient-performed at-home surgical drain removal is safe and feasible following hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, surgical drains are considered a relative contraindication to telemedicine-based postoperative care. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of an at-home patient-performed surgical drain removal pilot program. METHODS: A prospective cohort study among patients who were discharged with surgical drains was performed. Patients discharged with drains were given the option for in-clinic, provider-performed removal, or at-home, patient-performed drain removal. Patient demographics, health characteristics, perioperative metrics, and operative outcomes were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 68 encounters with drain removal were included (at-home: 28%, n = 19; in-clinic: 72%, n = 49), with both groups having similar demographics, except for age (median age of telemedicine-based at-home: 50 vs in-clinic: 62 years, p = 0.03). Patients who opted into at-home, patient-performed drain removal were more likely to have drain removal occur earlier (9 vs 13 days for in-clinic, p < 0.001). In-clinic removal resulted in increased encounters with surgical nursing staff and increased travel time, with no significant difference in complication burden. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-performed at-home drain removal is safe and allows for more timely drain removal.

Outcomes of Telemedicine-Based Consultation among Rural Patients Referred for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction and Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative telemedicine use has increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and may improve access to surgical care. However, studies assessing outcomes in populations at risk for digital-health disparities are lacking. We sought to characterize the pre- and postoperative outcomes for rural patient populations being assessed for hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction with telehealth. METHODS: Patients undergoing telehealth evaluation from March 2020 through May 2021 were identified. Rurality was identified by zip code of residence. Rural and urban patients were compared based on demographics, diagnosis, treatment plan, and visit characteristics and outcomes. Downstream care use related to supplementary in-person referral, and diagnostic testing was assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred-seventy-three (196 preoperative, 177 postoperative) telehealth encounters occurred during the study period (rural: 28% of all encounters). Rural patients were more likely to present with recurrent or incisional hernias (90.0 vs 72.7%, p = 0.02) and advanced comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists status score > 2: 73.1 vs 52.1%, p = 0.009). Rural patients derived significant benefits related to time saved commuting, with median distances of 299 and 293 km for pre- and postoperative encounters, respectively. Downstream care use was 6.1% (N = 23) for additional in-person evaluations and 3.4% (N = 13) for further diagnostic testing, with no difference by rurality. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative telehealth can safely be implemented for rural populations seeking hernia repair and may be an effective method for reducing disparities. Downstream care use related to additional in-person referral or diagnostic testing was minimally impacted in both the preoperative and postoperative settings. These findings suggest that rurality should not deter surgeons from providing telemedicine-based surgical consultation for hernia repair.

Outcomes for audio-only and video-based preoperative encounters for abdominal wall reconstruction and hernia consultations.

BACKGROUND: Digital health is commonly utilized for surgical evaluation, however little is known regarding the relative effectiveness of audio-only and video-based encounters. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing preoperative digital health encounters at a hernia center from March 2020-May 2021 was conducted. Visit types were dichotomized to audio-only and video-based encounters. Downstream care utilization and visit-specific outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: 204 preoperative digital health encounters were conducted during the study period. Audio-only encounters were more commonly performed for patients classified as older and rural. Supplemental in-person examinations were required among 13.5% and 4.0% of new- and established-patient encounters, respectively, with no significant difference between audio-only and video-based assessments. Finalized operative plans were coordinated for 43.6% of patients, with no significant difference among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients being evaluated with audio-only encounters are more likely to be older and reside in rural settings, yet demonstrate no significant difference in downstream care utilization and clinic encounter outcomes relative to those being evaluated via video-based assessment. Enabling audio-only surgical consultations may minimize disparities in digital care.