RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Surgeons can help reduce health care spending by selecting affordable and efficient instruments. The laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is commonly performed and can serve as a model for improving health care cost. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients who underwent LA for non-perforated appendicitis from March 2015 to November 2017. Our objective was to determine which combination of disposable instruments afforded the lowest total operative cost without compromising postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1857 consecutive patients were reviewed from 2 hospitals. After determining the 8 most commonly utilized combinations of disposable instruments, 846 patients were ultimately analyzed. The combination of a LigaSure, Endoloop, and an EndoBag (LEB) had the shortest median operative time (25 minutes, P < .001) and lowest median total operative cost ($1893, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The LEB instrument combination rendered the shortest operative time, lowest total operative cost, and can be used to maximize surgical value during LA.
Asunto(s)
Apendicectomía/métodos , Apendicitis/cirugía , Equipos Desechables/economía , Laparoscopía , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos/economía , Adulto , Apendicectomía/economía , Apendicectomía/instrumentación , Apendicitis/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Humanos , Laparoscopía/economía , Laparoscopía/instrumentación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Pediatric cervical spine injuries are rare events. Missed injuries must be weighed against radiation exposure and excess resource utilization in a young population. A universal pediatric cervical spine clearance algorithm does not exist. The study objective is to determine if care improved after the implementation of a standardized cervical spine clearance pathway by evaluating imaging rates, length of stay, speciality consultation, and injury detection. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group reviewed relevant literature to develop an algorithm for cervical spine clearance in pediatric trauma patients. We reviewed patient charts 15 months before and after implementation. Categorical comparisons were tested with Chi-square. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The pre- and post-implementation groups were homogenous when comparing demographics, mechanism and severity of injury. Using the cervical spine clearance pathway, patients received fewer plain cervical spine radiographs (34% vs 16%), fewer spine speciality consults (28% vs 13%), and more patients were cleared clinically (44% vs 62%) (p < 0.05). There were 2 (1.7%) documented injuries in the pre-implementation group and 3 (3%) documented injuries in the post-implementation group. There were no missed injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a standardized pathway allows more patients' cervical spines to be cleared clinically and better utilizes resources without compromising patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. TYPE OF STUDY: Care Management Study.
Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/lesiones , Vías Clínicas , Traumatismos Vertebrales/diagnóstico , Algoritmos , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Michigan , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Estudios Prospectivos , Radiografía/estadística & datos numéricos , Derivación y Consulta/estadística & datos numéricos , Medición de Riesgo , Centros TraumatológicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: We initiated a pediatric surgical program including a caregiver for the induction of anesthesia. We measured preoperative midazolam administration, preoperative time, induction time, and program satisfaction. METHODS: Families with children undergoing surgery during the study period were included. Preoperative midazolam administration, preoperative time, and induction time were compared between participants and controls. Satisfaction surveys were given to participating caregivers and staff. RESULTS: The rate of preoperative midazolam use decreased from 41% (392/964) to 13% (16/118) among participants vs controls (pâ¯<â¯0.0001). After linear regression analysis, this difference persisted as an adjusted odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CIâ¯=â¯0.16-0.52). Preoperative and induction times (minutes) were similar between groups (76.2 vs 82.2, 13.8 vs 16.2, pâ¯=â¯nonsignificant). Based on 5-point Likert surveys, the program was rated as "beneficial" or "very beneficial" to the patient by caregivers (99.2%) and staff (77.5%). Caregivers stated it "reduced" or "greatly reduced" anxiety for them (87.1%) and their child (93.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Opponents of similar programs suggest familial presence slows care and is disruptive. Our program decreased utilization of preoperative anxiolytics with no effect on operating room efficiency. Both hospital staff and participants felt the program was beneficial to the patient. Perceived caregiver and child anxiety was reduced. TYPE OF STUDY: Treatment study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.