[Outpatient arthroscopic surgery]

A comparison between a maximum care university hospital and an outpatient clinic - potential for optimization in arthroscopic workflows?

BACKGROUND

Due to the growing economic pressure, there is an increasing interest in the optimization of operational processes within surgical operating rooms (ORs). Surgical departments are frequently dealing with limited resources, complex processes with unexpected events as well as constantly changing conditions. In order to use available resources efficiently, existing workflows and processes have to be analyzed and optimized continuously. Structural and procedural changes without prior data-driven analyses may impair the performance of the OR team and the overall efficiency of the department. The aim of this study is to develop an adaptable software toolset for surgical workflow analysis and perioperative process optimization in arthroscopic surgery.

METHODS

In this study, the perioperative processes of arthroscopic interventions have been recorded and analyzed subsequently. A total of 53 arthroscopic operations were recorded at a maximum care university hospital (UH) and 66 arthroscopic operations were acquired at a special outpatient clinic (OC). The recording includes regular perioperative processes (i.a. patient positioning, skin incision, application of wound dressing) and disruptive influences on these processes (e.g. telephone calls, missing or defective instruments, etc.). For this purpose, a software tool was developed ('s.w.an Suite Arthroscopic toolset'). Based on the data obtained, the processes of the maximum care provider and the special outpatient clinic have been analyzed in terms of performance measures (e.g. Closure-To-Incision-Time), efficiency (e.g. activity duration, OR resource utilization) as well as intra-process disturbances and then compared to one another.

RESULTS

Despite many similar processes, the results revealed considerable differences in performance indices. The OC required significantly less time than UH for surgical preoperative (UH: 30:47 min, OC: 26:01 min) and postoperative phase (UH: 15:04 min, OC: 9:56 min) as well as changeover time (UH: 32:33 min, OC: 6:02 min). In addition, these phases result in the Closure-to-Incision-Time, which lasted longer at the UH (UH: 80:01 min, OC: 41:12 min).

CONCLUSION

The perioperative process organization, team collaboration, and the avoidance of disruptive factors had a considerable influence on the progress of the surgeries. Furthermore, differences in terms of staffing and spatial capacities could be identified. Based on the acquired process data (such as the duration for different surgical steps or the number of interfering events) and the comparison of different arthroscopic departments, approaches for perioperative process optimization to decrease the time of work steps and reduce disruptive influences were identified.

[Open transosseous reconstruction of the rotator cuff: clinical outcome, influencing factors and complications]

BACKGROUND

Open transosseous rotator cuff reconstruction (RCR) still plays a prominent role in current treatment of rotator cuff tears. This study aimed to examine mid-term and long-term results of clinical outcome, determine influencing factors and analyze complications.

PATIENTS

This retrospective cohort study included 104 Patients following standardized open transosseous RCR. After a mean follow-up period of 38.3 months (range 12-71 months) 88 Patients (89 shoulders) were available for examination. The mean age of Patients at surgery was 57.1 years (range 29-83 years). Standardized clinical examination included sonography and assessment of the absolute, relative and intra-individual constant scores (CS(abs), CS(rel), CS(intra)), Oxford shoulder score (OSS), American shoulder and elbow surgeons' score (ASESS) and single assessment numeric evaluation score (SANES). The level of significance for analysis of variance (ANOVA) was set at p < 0.05 (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

Mean values and standard deviations (σ) were: CS(abs) = 71 points (σ: 20.3), CS(rel) = 76 points (σ: 20.7), CS(intra) = 86 % (σ: 19.5), OSS(mod) = 77 points (σ: 20.6), ASESS = 73 points (σ: 23.3) and SANES = 72 % (σ: 22.0). Clinical results were superior when the complaints were initiated by trauma (p < 0.05). Patients with massive tears showed inferior results relative to all outcome measures (p < 0.05). Concomitant pathologies even without surgical relevance were associated with inferior outcome (p < 0.05). The factors surgeon, suture material and acromioplasty did not exert a significant influence. Revision surgery was required in 12 out of 89 (13.5 %) cases and re-ruptures occurred in 19.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective and subjective clinical results following open transosseous RCR were comparable to those of previously described open and arthroscopic techniques. Results were superior when the complaints were initiated by trauma. Massive tears and concomitant pathologies even without surgical relevance were associated with inferior clinical outcome. Open or arthroscopic acromioplasty did not add further benefits. A standardized operative procedure led to reproducible results irrespective of the factor surgeon.