Impact of body mass index on surgical case durations in an academic medical center.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between patient body mass index (BMI) and operating room duration. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Demographic data and anesthesia/surgical times for adult surgical patients at University of Virginia Health between August 2017 and February 2019 were collected and analyzed. PATIENTS: A total of 31,548 cases were included in the final analysis. 55% of patients were female, and 51% were classified as ASA Physical Status 2. The mean operating room (OR) duration was 144.2 min ± 112.7 (median = 118, IQR = 121). Orthopedic surgery (32%) was the most common surgery. MEASUREMENTS: Linear mixed effects models were used to examine whether procedure intervals differed across three BMI categories (BMI < 30, 30 ≤ BMI < 40, BMI ≥ 40), considering within-surgeon correlations. Surgical times were log-transformed to correct for positive skewness. MAIN RESULTS: The average time in the operating room was longer for patients with higher BMI (mean ± SD [median, IQR] = 139.5 ± 111.2 [113.0, IQR = 114], 150.2 ± 115.4 [125, IQR = 127], and 153.1 ± 111.1 [130, IQR = 134] for BMI < 30, 30 ≤ BMI < 40, and BMI ≥ 40), respectively. We found a 2% [95% CI = 1-3%] and 3% [95% CI = 1-5%] increase in OR time for 30 ≤ BMI < 40 and BMI ≥ 40, respectively, compared to BMI < 30, after controlling for within-surgeon correlations and covariates. The excess time was primarily determined by anesthesia times. CONCLUSION: In an academic hospital, patients with BMI ≥ 30 required more time in the operating room than patients with BMI < 30, when controlling for confounders. This information can be incorporated into modern-day OR scheduling software, potentially resulting in more accurate case duration estimates that reduce waiting and improve OR efficiency.

Residents as Leaders: Using a Delphi Process to Conduct an Institutional Preoperative Patient Optimization Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Many residency programs struggle to meet the ACGME requirement for resident participation in quality improvement initiatives. STUDY DESIGN: As part of an institutional quality improvement effort, trainees from the Departments of Surgery and Anesthesiology at a single academic medical center were teamed with institutional content experts in 7 key risk factor areas within preoperative patient optimization. A systematic review of each subject matter area was performed using the MEDLINE database. Institutional recommendations for the screening and management of each risk factor were developed and approved using modified Delphi consensus methodology. Upon project completion, an electronic survey was administered to all individuals who participated in the process to assess the perceived value of participation. RESULTS: Fifty-one perioperative stakeholders participated in recommendation development: 26 trainees and 25 content experts. Residents led 6 out of 7 groups specific to a subject area within preoperative optimization. A total of 4,649 abstracts were identified, of which 456 full-text articles were selected for inclusion in recommendation development. Seventeen out of 26 (65.4%) trainees completed the survey. The vast majority of trainees reported increased understanding of their preoperative optimization subject area (15/17 [88.2%]) as well as the Delphi consensus method (14/17 [82.4%]) after participation in the project. Fourteen out of 17 (82.4%) trainees stated that they would participate in a similar quality improvement initiative again. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a novel way to involve trainees in an institutional quality initiative that served to educate trainees in quality improvement, the systematic review process, Delphi methodology, and preoperative optimization. This study provides a framework that other residency programs can use to engage residents in institutional quality improvement efforts.

Influence of catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression on in-hospital opioid consumption, pain, and quality of recovery after adult spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE Perception of perioperative pain is influenced by various psychological factors. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression on in-hospital opioid consumption, pain scores, and quality of recovery in adults who underwent spine surgery. METHODS Patients undergoing spine surgery were enrolled in this study, and the preoperatively completed questionnaires included the verbal rating scale (VRS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Quality of recovery was assessed using the 40-item Quality of Recovery questionnaire (QoR40). Opioid consumption and pain scores according to the VRS were recorded daily until discharge. RESULTS One hundred thirty-nine patients were recruited for the study, and 101 completed the QoR40 assessment postoperatively. Patients with higher catastrophizing scores were more likely to have higher maximum pain scores postoperatively (estimate: 0.03, SE: 0.01, p = 0.02), without increased opioid use (estimate: 0.44, SE: 0.27, p = 0.11). Preoperative anxiety (estimate: 1.18, SE: 0.65, p = 0.07) and depression scores (estimate: 1.06, SE: 0.71, p = 0.14) did not correlate with increased postoperative opioid use; however, patients with higher preoperative depression scores had lower quality of recovery after surgery (estimate: -1.9, SE: 0.56, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression play important roles in modulating postoperative pain. Preoperative evaluation of these factors, utilizing a validated tool, helps to identify patients at risk. This might allow for earlier psychological intervention that could reduce pain severity and improve the quality of recovery.