Surgical site infection related to use of elastomeric pumps in pectus excavatum repair. Lessons learned from root cause analysis

The impact of an enhanced recovery perioperative pathway for pediatric pectus deformity repair

PURPOSE

Pediatric repair of chest wall deformities is associated with significant pain, morbidity, and resource utilization. We sought to determine outcomes of a perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing minimally invasive (Nuss) and traditional (Ravitch) corrective procedures.

METHODS

Our ERAS protocol was implemented in 2015. We performed a retrospective review of patients for Nuss or Ravitch procedures before and after ERAS implementation. Combined and procedure segregated bivariate analyses were conducted on postoperative outcomes and resource utilization.

RESULTS

There are 17 patients in the pre-intervention group (Nuss = 13 and Ravitch = 4) compared to 38 patients in the post-intervention group (Nuss = 28 and Ravitch = 10). Protocol implementation increased utilization of pre-operative non-narcotic medication. The combined and Nuss post-intervention groups had a significant decrease in epidural duration and time to enteral medications, but had increased total postoperative opioid usage. The Ravitch post-intervention group had a significant decrease in intra-operative narcotics and discharge pain scores. There were no differences in length of stay or complications.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of our ERAS protocol standardized pectus perioperative care, but did not improve postoperative opioid usage, complications, or resource utilization. Alterations in the protocol may lead to achieving desired goals of better pain management and decreased resource utilization.

The Nuss procedure for repair of pectus excavatum: 20 error traps and a culture of safety

In 1998, Donald Nuss changed the way the world thought about the surgical repair of pectus excavatum. The new operation adheres to sound orthopedic fundaments, but has a significantly higher learning curve than other operations in pediatric surgery. Variations in pectus excavatum type, severity, symmetry and chest wall pliability bring challenges. This article will detail common error traps and ways to avoid them when performing the Nuss procedure. As recent publications have shown, an operation done more than 50,000 times across the world may bring to light infrequent but devastating outcomes that may be preventable. The critical view of safety for pectus repair is discussed, as are areas where a culture of safety could optimize results on a larger scale. We will review potential opportunities to improve outcomes by identifying error traps in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing the Nuss procedure.

Progressive reduction of hospital length of stay following minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum: A retrospective comparison of three analgesia modalities, the role of addressing patient anxiety, and reframing patient expectations

PURPOSE

Management of postoperative pain is a significant challenge following the Nuss procedure. Epidurals, PCAs, and newer analgesia modalities have been used elsewhere without demonstrating consistent improvement in the reported length of hospital stays (LOS). We reviewed a large single surgeon experience identifying three different methods of analgesia used over time to highlight marked improvement in patient LOS.

METHODS

IRB approval was obtained and patient clinical information was retrospectively reviewed from 2001 to 2017. The primary outcome variable was length of hospital stay. An expanded preoperative consultation reviews the issue of pain, the negative impact of anxiety on recovery, and our current success of shortened hospital stays with our patients.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-three patients representing three different analgesia approaches had a LOS of 4.4 days (epidural); 2.2 days (PCA/intercostal nerve block); and 1.6 days (scheduled oral pain meds/intercostal nerve blocks). The current LOS for patients is 1.0 day. Patients successfully stop using narcotics by the end of the first week postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative intercostal nerve blocks, scheduled postoperative pain medications, and enhanced preoperative consultation aimed to educate patients about anxiety and reframe patient pain expectations have collectively decreased LOS, and reduced postoperative narcotic usage.

TYPE OF STUDY

Clinical research LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for Nuss bar infections: A single center study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Our previously published data suggested several risk factors for infection after the Nuss procedure. We aimed to further elucidate these findings.

METHODS

An IRB-approved (14-03-WC-0034), single institution, retrospective review was performed to evaluate the incidence of postoperative Nuss bar infections associated with seven variables. These were subjected to bivariate and multivariable analyses. A broad definition of infection was used including cellulitis, superficial infection with drainage, or deep infection occurring at any time postoperatively.

RESULTS

Over 7years (4/1/2009-7/31/2016), 25 (3.2%) of 781 patients developed a postoperative infection after primary Nuss repair. Multivariable analyses demonstrated an increased risk of infection with perioperative clindamycin versus cefazolin for all infections (AOR 3.72, p=.017), and specifically deep infections (AOR 5.72, p=.004). The risk of a superficial infection was increased when antibiotic infusion completed >60min prior to incision (AOR 10.4, p=.044) and with the use of peri-incisional subcutaneous catheters (OR 8.98, p=.008).

CONCLUSION

Following primary Nuss repair, the rate of deep bar infection increased with the use of perioperative clindamycin rather than cefazolin. The rate of superficial infection increased when perioperative antibiotic infusion was completed more than 60min prior to incision and with the use of peri-incisional subcutaneous catheters. Further studies are needed to better understand these findings.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective chart review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III treatment study.