Postoperative outcomes of ureteroscopy for pediatric urolithiasis: A secondary analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric.

INTRODUCTION: Incidence of pediatric urinary stone disease (PUSD) has increased over recent decades. Innovations in ureteroscopic technology has expanded the role of endourologic stone management in children. However, there is currently no consensus on the optimal use of ureteroscopy (URS) within the heterogenous PUSD population. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to investigate the rate of 30-day unplanned readmissions in pediatric patients after URS. The secondary objective was to examine the influence of demographic, perioperative, postoperative, and reoperation variables as predictors of an increased risk of unplanned readmission in this sample. STUDY DESIGN: A secondary analysis was performed on retrospectively collected data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric between 2015 and 2018. Pediatric patients diagnosed with PUSD and treated with URS were identified. Patients undergoing concurrent or additional surgeries during the URS procedure were excluded. Data on demographic, perioperative, postoperative, and unplanned reoperation variables were examined for their possible influence on 30-day unplanned readmissions. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohort. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed using independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc test, and Chi-square Tests or Fisher's Exact Test, respectfully. Multivariate analysis was performed using stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2510 patients were identified within the study period. The majority of children undergoing URS were between 12 and 18 years of age (66.1%), female (56.9%), and had renal calculi (45.2%). Of these, 162 (6.5%) experienced a 30-day unplanned readmission related to the URS procedure. The most common reasons for an unplanned readmission was urinary tract infection (31.4%), new/unresolved stone (28.3%), and postoperative pain (8.2%). Multivariate modelling showed that females (Relative Risk [RR]: 2.03; 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 1.34-3.07), patients with renal stones (RR: 1.77; 95%CI: 1.10-2.83), and inpatients at the time of surgery (RR: 1.61; 95%CI: 1.03-2.51) were more at risk of an unplanned readmission within 30-days of an URS procedure. CONCLUSION: This study reports on short-term unplanned readmission rates in pediatric patients who underwent an URS procedure. Further it highlights possible predictors of unplanned readmission rates within a sampling of patients from NSQIP affiliated institutions. The findings from this study can be used to guide future studies around the safe use of URS in pediatric patients.

Patient barrier acceptance during airway management among anesthesiologists: a simulation pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. METHODS: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3, 35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9, 35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6, 39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.