Incidence and outcomes of intraoperative vascular surgery consultations

Understanding the Scope of Acute Care Vascular Surgery at a Tertiary Academic Medical System

OBJECTIVE

The restructuring of non-elective general surgery and nationwide implementation of the acute care surgery paradigm has improved patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. Although vascular surgery maintains one of the highest acuity rates among surgical specialties, the acute care vascular surgery (ACVS) practice model has not been widely accepted. In the present study, we investigate the scope and burden of ACVS at a tertiary academic medical system.

METHODS

All vascular surgical procedures performed at three hospitals comprising a large tertiary academic medical system were retrospectively queried through electronic medical records. Data were collected on procedure, acuity, timing of intervention, primary service, admission type, and total costs and charges. Patients were stratified by acuity of surgical intervention, with ACVS being defined as urgent or emergent operation.

RESULTS

A total of 12,689 vascular surgeries were performed from 2018 to 2022. ACVS procedures comprised 22.1% this total (n=2,803; 12.5% urgent, 9.6% emergent), with an annual burden ranging from 19.1% to 28.3%. Vascular surgeons served as primary surgeon in 91.3% of ACVS and co-surgeon in 8.7%. Fourteen separate surgical specialties requested acute vascular assistance, with the most frequently consulting specialties including trauma/acute care surgery (n=109, 3.9%) and cardiac surgery (n=74, 2.6%). ACVS cases were more frequently performed after-hours (30.7% vs 11.6%) and on weekends (27.1% vs 2.0%) compared with elective vascular procedures (p<0.0001 each). The majority of ACVS cases originated from inpatient (n=2,353, 85.0%) and emergency department (n=379, 13.5%) consultations. Overall, ACVS generated $37.5 million in charges, accounting for 14% of total procedure-related charges over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

ACVS comprises a substantial portion of modern vascular practice, and is associated with significant human and healthcare resource expenditure. These data support the development of practice models dedicated to acute vascular surgical care.

The substantial burden of iatrogenic vascular injury on the vascular surgery workforce at an academic medical center

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons are often called upon to provide emergent surgical assistance to other specialties for iatrogenic complications, both intraoperatively and in the inpatient setting. The management of iatrogenic vascular injury remains a critical role of the vascular surgeon, especially in the context of the increasing adoption of percutaneous procedures by other specialties. This study aims to characterize consultation timing, management, and outcomes for iatrogenic vascular injuries.

METHODS

This study identified patients for whom vascular surgery was consulted for iatrogenic vascular complications from February 1, 2022, to May 12, 2023. Patient information, including demographic information, injury details, and details of any operative intervention, was retrospectively collected from February 1, 2022, to October 13, 2022, and prospectively collected for the remainder of the study period. Analyses were performed with R (version 2022.02.03).

RESULTS

There were 87 patients with consultations related to iatrogenic vascular injury. Of these, 42 (46%) were female and the mean age was 59 years (±18 years). The most common consulting services were cardiology (32%), cardiothoracic surgery (26%), general surgery (8%), and neurointerventional radiology (10%). Reasons for consultation included hemorrhage (36%), limb ischemia (36%), and treatment of pseudoaneurysm (23%). A total of 24% of consults were intraoperative, 20% of consults related to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation, and 16% of consults related to ventricular assist devices including left ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump. The majority of these consult requests (60%) occurred during evening and night hours (5 PM to 7 AM). Emergent intervention was required in 62% of cases and consisted of primary open surgical repair of arterial injury (54%), endovascular intervention (21%), and open thromboembolectomy (15%). Overall, in-hospital mortality for the patient cohort was 20% and the reintervention rate was 23%, reflecting the underlying complexity of the illness and nature of the vascular injury in this patient group.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons play an essential role in managing emergent life-threatening hemorrhagic and ischemic iatrogenic vascular complications in the hospitalized setting. The complications require immediate bedside or intraoperative consult and often emergent open surgical or endovascular intervention. Furthermore, many of these require urgent management in the evening or overnight hours, and therefore the high frequency of these events represents a potential significant resource utilization and workforce issue to the vascular surgery workforce.

Defining the Value of Vascular Surgery Service at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Vascular surgeons play a critical role in the functioning of a healthcare system. As a service line, vascular surgery not only performs its own complex operations but also provides support to other surgical specialties by assisting in the management of vascular-related complications. Previous reports have acknowledged the value of consulting vascular surgeons; however, these studies have primarily been limited to single-center series. In this study, we aim to contribute to the existing literature by sharing our experience and highlighting the financial value of consulting vascular surgeons at a large tertiary academic medical center.

METHODS

Institutional electronic medical records were retrospectively queried for all operations performed by vascular surgeons from 2020 to 2022. Two separate procedural groups were identified. The first group comprised all surgeries where vascular surgery was listed as a co-surgeon for other surgical specialties. The second group comprised all surgeries where vascular surgery was the primary surgeon for service-level cases. Service-level cases were defined as operations resulting directly from (1) iatrogenic complications from other services, (2) consultations for traumatic injury, or (3) primary surgeon for nonvascular cases. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate work relative value units (wRVUs) per primary procedure code.

RESULTS

A total of 7,821 surgeries were performed with vascular involvement more than the study period. Of these, 726 operations (9.3%) were co-surgeon cases requiring intraoperative vascular assistance, from 109 surgeons across all 16 surgical specialties. There were no missing data. The most common specialties requesting vascular assistance included cardiac surgery (n = 247, 34.0%), orthopedic surgery (n = 152, 20.9%), and neurosurgery (n = 131, 18.0%). Total procedural wRVU for co-surgeon cases was 16,220, and total charges exceeded $77.5 million dollars. Vascular surgery served in a primary surgeon role in an additional 154 service-level cases (2.0%) resulting from 10 nonsurgical services. The most common service-level indication was iatrogenic vascular injury (n = 87, 56.4%), and most service-level cases required urgent or emergent surgery (n = 123, 79.9%). These procedures generated an additional 2,150 wRVUs and $1.1 million dollars in charges for the hospital system. Of all co-surgeon or service-level cases, 19.1% (n = 168) occurred after-hours and 10.3% (n = 91) occurred on a holiday or weekend.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgery is crucial to the operation of all surgical services and many nonsurgical service lines within an academic medical center. Apart from providing essential services for primary vascular diseases, the vascular surgery service line offers substantial financial benefits to the healthcare system through its consulting role. A considerable portion of operative consultations is performed under urgent or emergent circumstances, often necessitating surgical intervention outside regular working hours or on holidays/weekends. These findings have significant implications for assessing the value and compensation of vascular surgeons in today's healthcare landscape.

Five-year survival after retroperitoneal oncologic resection with and without vascular surgeon intervention

OBJECTIVES

Retroperitoneal tumor resection commonly disturbs major vessels; therefore, surgical teams can recruit vascular surgeons to prevent injuries and improve the prognosis of oncologic patients. The objective of the present study is to establish long-term survival after retroperitoneal tumor resection surgery with an emphasis on the potential impact of preventing or repairing major vessel injuries when tumors are adjacent to the aorta or vena cava.

METHODS

Retrospective case series including all cases of surgical removal of retroperitoneal tumors between 2007 and 2020 in a highly specialized hospital in Mexico City. Long-term survival was defined as 5 years after surgical intervention. Descriptive statistics, group-comparison tests, and regression analysis were performed using Stata 16.

RESULTS

From a total of 70 cases, vascular injury occurred in 30 (42.8%) and the vascular surgeon intervened in 19 (27.1%) of them, 4 (21%) were performed by a vascular surgeon with planned intervention, and in 9 (47.3%) cases the vascular surgeon was called to join the surgery due to emergency. Intraoperative bleeding was 2-fold greater in the group with an emergent participation of vascular surgery in contrast with the planned intervention group (4, 235 mL vs 2, 035 mL, p = 0.04). The regression model revealed a significant association between the intervention of a vascular surgeon and long-term survival (OR 59.3, p = 0.03) after adjusting for sociodemographic and characteristics of oncologic nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Planned intervention of vascular surgeons in retroperitoneal tumor resection may have a positive impact not only in trans-operatory period, but also on long-term survival.

Emergencies during oncovascular surgery: Strategies and pitfalls

In a growing number of pathologies, vascular invasion is no longer considered a contraindication for surgery with a curative intention. This has led vascular surgeons to be more involved in the treatment of pathologies that they are not used to. These patients should be managed in a multidisciplinary manner. New types of emergencies and complications have emerged. Emergencies in oncovascular surgery are mostly avoidable with careful planning and good collaboration between oncological surgeons and a dedicated vascular surgery team. The operations often involve difficult vascular dissection and complex reconstructive techniques in a potentially contaminated and irradiated field, and the risk of postoperative complications and blow out is increased. However, after a successful operation and immediate postoperative course, the patients often recover faster than the typical fragile vascular surgical patient. This narrative review focuses on emergencies that are more or less specific to oncovascular procedures. A scientific approach and international collaboration are needed, so that we can better identify which patients should be operated, what problems to anticipate and could be avoided with better planning, and which solutions improve patient outcome.

Incidence and risk factors for pressure injuries in patients who have undergone vascular operations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients who have undergone vascular operations are thought to be at an increased risk for developing pressure injuries; however, the extent to which pressure injuries occur in this population is not clear. This scoping review sought to summarize what is known about the incidence of pressure injuries, and the risk factors for the development of pressure injuries in patients who have undergone vascular operations. MAIN: An initial search identified 2564 articles, and 9 English language studies were included. Results showed that due to study design limitations in the available literature preventing hospital-acquired and present on admission pressure injuries to be distinguished, it is difficult to ascertain the incidence rate of pressure injuries in this population.

CONCLUSION

Certain vascular procedures were found to be higher risk for the development of pressure injuries such as major amputations and lower extremity bypass surgery. In addition to procedural risk factors, patient factors were identified that may be associated with the development of pressure injuries in the vascular population, and these in the authors' view deserve further exploration. Overall, this scoping review identified an area ripe for future research, the results of which would have implications for wound care in healthcare institutions and at home.

A surgeon's framework for the unplanned intraoperative consultation

PURPOSE

Surgeons will likely be called to assist with or offer advice regarding an unanticipated intraoperative event or finding many times during their careers. Yet, there is no practical framework of how to respond to these consults nor is there any formal training in this area. The review of the limited literature and expert senior opinions can help explain the ethical components involved but does not address some of the practical aspects that the consulting surgeon may need to confront when responding to an unplanned intraoperative consultation.

METHODS

We reviewed the existing surgical literature on intraoperative consultation across surgical disciplines and interpreted it in light of our own experiences and the advice of senior surgical colleagues.

RESULTS

We present a framework for the minimum professional expectations of a surgeon responding to an intraoperative consultation.

CONCLUSION

In this manuscript, we present a selected review of the available literature on the topic, establish some of the guiding ethical principles, and offer an actionable and detailed framework that can support trainees and practicing surgeons dealing with these increasingly common and stressful unplanned circumstances.

Vascular surgery is the most commonly consulted specialty for emergent operative trauma

OBJECTIVE

Despite an increasing rate of intraoperative consultation of vascular surgery (VS) for trauma patients, VS is not one of the subspecialties required for American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification. We sought to assess the rates and patterns of emergent operative VS consultation compared with other surgical subspecialties in the trauma setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who presented with traumatic injuries requiring emergent surgical operations (<3 hours after presentation) from 2015 to 2019 at a level I trauma center. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and data on consulted surgical subspecialties were collected. The primary outcome measured was the rate of intraoperative consultation to VS and other subspecialties (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 2265 patients were identified, with 221 emergent intraoperative consults to VS and 507 consults to OS. After VS (9.8%), the most common subspecialties consulted were orthopedics (9.2%) and urology (5%). Overall, VS was more likely to be consulted in immediate trauma operations (<1 hour after presentation) (65.6% vs 38.1%, P < .0001), penetrating injuries (73.3% vs 47.9%, P < .0001), and at night (60.6% vs 51.9%, P = .02) compared with OS. Time from admission to operation was shorter for cases when VS was involved compared with OS (54.1 ± 40.4 vs 80.6 ± 47.9 minutes, P < .0001). In a multivariable logistic regression model, we found that requiring an immediate operation was associated with higher odds of requiring an intraoperative vascular consult (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval = 1.12-2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons are consulted intraoperatively to assist with emergent trauma at a greater rate compared with specialties that are required for level I trauma center verification. Current American College of Surgeons verification processes and site-specific policies should be re-evaluated to consider VS coverage as a requirement for trauma center verification.

Massive Transfusion Activations in Non-Trauma Patients

Introduction

Massive transfusion activations (MTAs) are commonly used in the care of the trauma patient. However, MTA for trauma patients constitutes only a small fraction of MpTA at our institution. The aim of this study was to characterize MTA in non-trauma patients to better understand how this strategy is employed at a larger tertiary hospital.

Methods

All MTA involving non-trauma patients from January 2017 to April 2019 were reviewed. Patients with unclear indications for MTA were excluded. Data collected included patient demographics, reason for MTA, transfusion ratios, use of adjunctive antifibrinolytics, use of viscoelastic testing, and vasopressor administration at the time of MTA.

Results

There were 328 patients and 353 MTA identified over the study period. The mean age was 52.0 years and 40.9% were male. Patients were most commonly under the care of a medical service (55.2%), while 25.3% were obstetric patients and 19.5% were surgical patients. Compliance with 1:1:1 transfusion ratios was low. Concomitant vasopressor use was high (70.8%), while antifibrinolytic agents (13.0%) and viscoelastic testing (19.0%) were used less commonly. The overall mortality of the study population was 56.1%.

Conclusions

Massive transfusion activations are frequently used in non-trauma patients. There was a low rate of adherence to 1:1:1 transfusion ratios as well as utilization of adjuncts and tools that could allow for targeted resuscitation. Understanding practice patterns relating to MTA may allow for an opportunity for improvement.

Inpatient consultations with the vascular and endovascular surgery team at an academic tertiary hospital

Background

Inpatient consultations are a fundamental component of practice in tertiary care centers. However, such consultations demand resources, generating a significant workload.

Objectives

To investigate the profile of inpatient consultations requested by other specialties and provided by the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery team at an academic tertiary hospital.

Methods

Prospective observational study.

Results

From May 2017 to May 2018, 223 consultations were provided, representing 2.2% of the workload. Most consultations were requested by Oncology (16.6%), Hematology (9.9%), Nephrology (9.0%), and Cardiology (6.3%). The leading reasons for inpatient consultation were: need for vascular access (51.1%) and requests to evaluate a vascular disease (48.9%). Acute venous diseases accounted for 19.3% of consultations, chronic arterial diseases for 14.8%, acute arterial diseases for 7.2%, diabetic feet for 5.4%, and chronic venous diseases accounted for 2.2%. Surgical treatment was performed in 57.0%, either conventional (43.9%) or endovascular (13.0%). Almost all (98.2%) patients’ issues were resolved.

Conclusions

Inpatient consultations with the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery team in a tertiary academic hospital accounted for 2.2% of the team’s entire workload. Most patients were elective and underwent low-complexity elective surgical procedures. There may be an opportunity to improve healthcare, redirecting these patients to the outpatient flow.

Intraoperative Vascular Assistance: Essential to an Institution's Ability to Provide Surgical Care Presented at the 2021 Annual Winter Meeting of the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The wide breadth of vascular surgery (VS) training enables vascular surgeons to assist in nonvascular operations and rapidly respond to urgent and emergent needs for intervention. This study aims to evaluate VS secondary operative assistance and intraoperative consultations Methods: Retrospective review of all operative interventions with a vascular surgeon as secondary surgeon between January 1^st, 2011 and January 31^st, 2020 at a single institution. Any cases with VS as primary service were excluded. Patient demographics, operative variables, and in-hospital outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-seven patients requiring interventions necessitating VS assistance were identified, this included elective, urgent, and emergent operative cases. One hundred thirty-one cases were urgent or emergent and 306 were elective. The median age was 58.0 years (IQR: 40-68.0). Most patients were male (237, 54.2%), White (298, 68.2%) and average BMI was 29.2 +/- 8.5 with ASA ≥4 (143, 32.7%). One hundred seventy (38.9%) cases involved intraoperative consultations, whereas, 267 (61.1%) provided advance notice of need for secondary assistance. The most common services requesting consultations were spine surgery (both orthopedic and neurosurgery) (83, 19%), cardiothoracic surgery (82, 18.8%), and surgical oncology (42, 9.6%). Vascular interventions included revascularization (108, 4.7%), hemorrhage control (94, 21.5%), and exposure (131, 30%). In-hospital mortality was 12.1%.

CONCLUSION

With the armamentarium of open, endovascular, and hybrid interventions, vascular surgeons are prepared to respond and intervene in nonvascular cases in the event of unexpected vascular compromise, iatrogenic injury, or challenging exposure, as well as assist in planned elective operations. This study reinforces the role of VS in an institution's ability to offer safe and prompt surgical care.

Intraoperative consultation of vascular surgeons is increasing at a major American trauma center

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons are often called to aid other surgical specialties for complex exposure, hemorrhage control, or revascularization. The evolving role of the vascular surgeon in the management of intraoperative emergencies involving trauma patients remains undefined. The primary aims of this study included determining the prevalence of intraoperative vascular consultation in trauma, describing how these interactions have changed over time, and characterizing the outcomes achieved by vascular surgeons in these settings. We hypothesized that growing endovascular capabilities of vascular surgeons have resulted in an increased involvement of vascular surgery faculty in the management of the trauma patient over time.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all operative cases at a single level I trauma center where a vascular surgeon was involved, but not listed as the primary surgeon, between 2002 and 2017 was performed. Cases were abstracted using Horizon Surgical Manager, a documentation system used in our operating room to track staff present, the type of case, and use. All elective cases were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 256 patients initially identified, 22 were excluded owing to the elective or joint nature of the procedure, leaving 234 emergent operative vascular consultations. Over the 15-year study period, a 529% increase in the number of vascular surgery consultations was seen, with 65% (n = 152) being intraoperative consultations requiring an immediate response. Trauma surgery (n = 103 [44%]) and orthopedic surgery (n = 94 [40%]) were the most common consulting specialties, with both demonstrating a trend of increasing consultations over time (general surgery, 1400%; orthopedic surgery, 220%). Indications for consultation were extremity malperfusion, hemorrhage, and concern for arterial injury. The average operative time for the vascular component of the procedures was 2.4 hours. Of patients presenting with ischemia, revascularization was successful in 94% (n = 116). Hemorrhage was controlled in 99% (n = 122). In-hospital mortality was relatively low at 7% (n = 17). Overall, despite the increase in intraoperative vascular consultations over time, a concomitant increase in the proportion of procedures done using endovascular techniques was not seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons are essential team members at a level I trauma center. Vascular consultation in this setting is often unplanned and often requires immediate intervention. The number of intraoperative vascular consultations is increasing and cannot be attributed solely to an increase in endovascular hemorrhage control, and instead may reflect the declining experience of trauma surgeons with vascular trauma. When consulted, vascular surgeons are effective in quickly gaining control of the situation to provide exposure, hemorrhage control, or revascularization.

Postoperative adverse events secondary to iatrogenic vascular injury during anterior lumbar spinal surgery

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar spine surgery (ALSS) requires mobilization of the great vessels, resulting in a high risk of iatrogenic vascular injury (VI). It remains unclear whether VI is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications and other related adverse outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the incidence of postoperative complications attributable to VI during ALSS, and (2) outcomes secondary to VI such as procedural blood loss, transfusion of blood products, length of stay (LOS), and in hospital mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective propensity-score matched, case-control study at 2 academic and 3 community medical centers, PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing ALSS between January 1st, 2000 and July 31st, 2019 were included in this analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications attributable to VI, such as venous thromboembolism, compartment syndrome, transfusion reaction, limb ischemia, and reoperations. The secondary outcomes included estimated operative blood loss (milliliter), transfused blood products, LOS (days), and in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

In total, 1,035 patients were identified, of which 75 (7.2%) had a VI. For comparative analyses, the 75 VI patients were paired with 75 comparable non-VI patients by propensity-score matching. The adequacy of the matching was assessed by testing the standardized mean differences (SMD) between VI and non-VI group (>0.25 SMD).

RESULTS

Two patients (2.7%) had VI-related postoperative complications in the studied period, which consisted of two deep venous thromboembolisms (DVTs) occurring on day 3 and 7 postoperatively. Both DVTs were located in the distal left common iliac vein (CIV). The VI these patients suffered were to the distal inferior vena cava and the left CIV, respectively. Both patients did not develop additional complications in consequence of their DVTs, however, did require systemic anticoagulation and placement of an inferior vena cava filter. There was no statistical difference with the non-VI group where no instances (0%) of postoperative complications were reported (p=.157). No differences were found in LOS or in hospital mortality between the two groups (p=.157 and p=.999, respectively). Intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion were both found to be higher in the VI group in comparison to the non-VI group (650 mL, interquartile range [IQR] 300-1400 vs. 150 mL, IQR 50-425, p≤.001; 0 units, IQR 0-3 vs. 0 units, IQR 0-1, p=.012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study found a low number of serious postoperative complications related to VI in ALSS. In addition, these complications were not significantly different between the VI and matched non-VI ALSS cohort. Although not significant, the found DVT incidence of 2.7% after VI in ALSS warrants vigilance and preventive measures during the postoperative course of these patients.

Outcomes of Sarcoma Resections Requiring Vascular Surgical Assistance: A Single-Center Experience

Objective: To describe the types of intervention and determine patency and survival after arterial and venous reconstruction after surgical excision of sarcomas. Methods: Between November 2001 and July 2015, 42 patients with sarcomas and vascular involvement underwent surgical oncologic resection followed by arterial or venous reconstruction or preservation of the native vascular bundle. Univariate, multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed on abstracted data, which included demographics, risk factors, oncologic and vascular treatment modalities, postoperative complications, graft patency, and survival outcomes. Results: A total of 42 sarcomas required vascular assistance for oncologic removal. The majority of sarcomas were malignant fibrous histiocytoma (23.8%), and the most common anatomic location was the retroperitoneum (48%). A total of 12 revascularizations procedures were performed, including 5 arterial, 3 venous, and 2 concomitant arterial and venous. In 32 cases, a vascular surgeon was needed for vessel ligation, repair, or mobilization. The overall 2- and 5-year survival was 77.7% and 26.2%, respectively, with no significant survival difference between patients who underwent revascularization compared to those without revascularization. There was a 100% patency rate in all cases at last follow-up, regardless of the type of vascular reconstruction (median 18 months, range 1-29 months). On multivariate analysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; P = .002) and positive surgical margins (P = .003) were associated with decreased survival. Most cases were performed in the last 5 years of the study (n = 27, 64.3%). Conclusions: Vascular reconstruction is feasible after surgical oncologic resection of sarcomas with good mid-term patency and limb preservation. Factors independently associated with mortality included COPD and positive surgical margins.

The value of the modern vascular surgeon to the health care system: A report from the Society for Vascular Surgery Valuation Work Group

Vascular surgeons provide an important service to the health care system. They are capable of treating a wide range of disease processes that affect both the venous and arterial systems. Their presence broadens the complexity and diversity of services that a health care system can offer both in the outpatient setting and in the inpatient setting. Because of their ability to control hemorrhage, they are critical to a safe operating room environment. The vascular surgery service line has a positive impact on hospital margin through both the direct vascular profit and loss and the indirect result of assisting other surgical and medical services in providing care. The financial benefits of a vascular service line will hold true for a wide range of alternative payment models, such as bundled payments or capitation. To fully leverage a modern vascular surgeon's skill set, significant investment is required from the health care system that is, however, associated with substantial return on the investment.

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Oncological Resections with Vascular Surgeons Improves Patient Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Oncological resections have become more radical in pursuit of disease free margins. Consequently, vascular structures may be injured inadvertently or purposely resected, with or without subsequent reconstruction. Thus, vascular surgeons have an increasing role in oncological surgery. The present authors sought to review their experience and examine the effect of timing of referral to a Vascular Surgeon (VS) on patient and surgical outcomes following tumour resection.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of a prospectively maintained database at a public hospital network in Adelaide, Australia. All cases of collaboration between a VS and other surgeons for resection of cancer or non-malignant tumour were included. Medical records and operative, pathological, and transfusion data were reviewed, with particular attention to referring team, timing of VS referral (pre- or intra-operative), and the operative role of the VS.

RESULTS

Seventy-two cases were identified from January 2004 to June 2018. The most common collaborators were General Surgery and Urology. Of the cases, 86% were elective and 71% were referred to the VS pre-operatively. Pre-operative referral was associated with a predominant VS role of dissection and exposure. Pre-operative referral was associated with lower odds of vessel repair and reconstruction compared with intra-operative referral (adjusted OR = 0.20; 95% CI 0.04-0.93; p = .040) and a lower incidence of positive surgical margins (35% vs. 80%, p = .028). The rate of blood product units required was lower among pre-operative referrals relative to intra-operative referrals, but the effect of timing was not significant after adjustment for potential confounders (IRR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.26-2.44; p = .70).

CONCLUSION

Pre-operative planned involvement of vascular surgery in oncological operations can improve surgical outcomes, with additional expected benefits for surgical training and cross specialty collaboration.

Vascular repairs in gynecologic operations are uncommon but predict major morbidity and mortality

OBJECTIVE

Gynecologic surgery has potential for adjunct vascular interventions, given the proximity of major intra-abdominal and pelvic blood vessels. Our goal was to determine contemporary incidence, associations, and outcomes of vascular repairs in gynecologic operations.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2017) was queried for patients undergoing elective gynecologic operations. Vascular repairs were performed concurrently or during reoperation. Univariable and multivariable analyses evaluated associations with vascular repairs and 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 201,224 gynecologic operations were identified: hysterectomy (88.3%), myomectomy (5.9%), adnexal surgery (3.5%), vulvovaginectomy/other (1.1%), nonadnexal tumor or cyst excision (0.5%), ectopic pregnancy treatment (0.4%), and pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.3%). There were 187 vascular repairs in 176 (0.09%) patients. Repairs were typically concurrent (89.8%) and most commonly included open abdominal blood vessel repair (51.8%), major abdominal artery ligation (25%), vena cava reconstruction/ligation (6%), common iliac vein ligation (4.2%), and aorta/great vessel repair (4.2%). A minority were performed endovascularly (1.7%). Patients undergoing vascular repairs were older (56 vs 46 years), were more likely to have an open vs minimally invasive/vaginal operation (71.6% vs 28.4%), and were more likely to have a hysterectomy (85.2%; P < .001 for all). In multivariable analysis, vascular repairs were observed more often with hysterectomy (odds ratio [OR]; 7.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.28-25.55; P = .001) and open vs minimally invasive/vaginal operations (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 2.64-10.42; P < .001). Vascular repairs were also more common for patients with malignant disease (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.78-4.53; P < .001), patients assigned to American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or class 4 (OR, 1.85; CI, 1.36-2.53; P = .002), and patients without obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.96; P = .014). Vascular repairs independently predicted major morbidity and mortality (OR, 7.26; 95% CI, 5.26-10.03; P < .001) after adjustment for open operative approach, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or class 4, and hysterectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas vascular repairs during gynecologic operations are rare, they are associated with morbidity and mortality. These findings provide an evidence base for risk assessment and informed consent.

Emergency intraoperative vascular surgery consultations at a tertiary academic center

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons are frequently called on to provide emergency assistance to surgical colleagues. Whereas previous studies have included elective preoperative vascular consultations, we sought to characterize the breadth of assistance provided during unplanned intraoperative consultations at a single tertiary academic center.

METHODS

We queried our institutional billing department during a 15-year period and reviewed the records (January 1, 2002-December 31, 2016) and identified unanticipated unplanned vascular surgery intraoperative consultations from all surgical services. Patients' demographics and comorbidities were recorded along with the consulting services, type of index operation, reasons for vascular consultation, regions of anatomic interventions, type of vascular interventions performed, and outcomes achieved.

RESULTS

There were 419 emergency intraoperative consultations identified. Patients were 51% male, with an average age of 57 years and body mass index of 28.3 kg/m². The most frequently consulting subspecialties included surgical oncology (n = 139 [33.2%]), cardiac surgery (n = 82 [19.6%]), and orthopedics (n = 44 [10.5%]). Index cases were elective/nonurgent (n = 324 [77.3%]), urgent (n = 27 [6.4%]), and emergent (n = 68 [16.2%]), with a majority involving tumor resection (n = 240 [57.3%]). The primary reasons for vascular consultation were revascularization (n = 213 [50.8%]), control of bleeding (n = 132 [31.5%]), assistance with dissection or exposure (n = 46 [11%]), embolic protection (n = 24 [5.7%]), and other (n = 4 [1.1%]). The primary blood vessel and anatomic field of intervention were categorized. Most cases (n = 264 [63%]) included preservation of blood flow, including primary arterial repair (n = 181 [43.2%]), patch angioplasty (n = 83 [19.8%]), bypass (n = 63 [15%]), and thrombectomy (n = 38 [9.1%]). Postoperative mean length of stay was 15 days, with 30-day and 1-year mortality of 7.2% and 26.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons are called on to provide unplanned open surgical consultations for a wide variety of specialties over wide-ranging anatomic regions, employing a variety of skills and techniques. This study testifies to the essential services supplied to hospitals and our surgical colleagues along with the broad skills and training necessary for modern vascular surgeons.

Iatrogenic Vascular Injuries of the Abdomen and Pelvis: The Experience at a Hellenic University Hospital

Background:

The aim of this study is to present the experience of a Vascular Division at a Hellenic University hospital concerning the management of iatrogenic vascular injuries (IVIs) of the abdomen or pelvis.

Patients and Methods:

This is a retrospective study evaluating all IVIs reported during a 10-year period in our institution. Only injuries warranting a vascular surgeon consultation were included in the study. Non-iatrogenic injuries were not included. Mortality and major complications within 30 days were evaluated.

Results:

Overall, 70 cases were recorded, with 41% being venous and 59% being arterial injuries. Iliac arteries (51%) were the most common location and rupture/lacerations (73%) were the most common type of injury. General surgery (61.5%) and cardiology (30%) procedures were the most frequently involved procedures. A 30-day mortality was 5.7%, with 30% of cases treated conservatively. Synthetic bypass grafting (odds ratio [OR] = 65.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.022-1050.358; P = .003) and male gender (OR = 83.77; 95% CI, 4.040-1736.738; P = .004) were associated with death.

Conclusions:

Iatrogenic vascular injuries of the abdomen or pelvis are usually associated with general surgery and endovascular procedures. When vascular consultation is requested early, mortality could remain low. However, a selected number of stable patients with retroperitoneal or pelvic hematomas could be treated conservatively, yielding satisfying results.

The financial value of vascular surgeons as operative consultants to other surgical specialties

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons provide assistance to other surgical specialties through planned and unplanned joint operative cases. The financial impact to the hospital of vascular surgeons as consultants in this context has yet to be quantified. We sought to quantify the financial value of services provided by consulting vascular surgeons in the performance of joint operative procedures, both planned and unplanned.

METHODS

Hospital financial data were reviewed for all inpatient operative cases during a 3-year period (2013-2015). Cases in which a vascular surgeon provided operative assistance as a consultant to a nonvascular surgeon were identified and designated planned or unplanned. Contribution margin, defined as hospital revenue minus variable cost, was determined for each case. In addition, the contribution margin ratio (contribution margin divided by revenue) was determined for each cohort. Financial data for consulting cases was compared with all nonconsult cases. Data analysis was performed with nonparametric statistics.

RESULTS

There were 208 cases with a primary nonvascular surgeon that required a vascular co-surgeon during the study period, 169 planned and 39 unplanned. For comparison, 19,594 nonconsult cases of other surgical specialties were identified. The median contribution margin was higher for vascular surgery consult cases compared with nonconsult cases ($14,406 [interquartile range, $63,192] vs $5491 [interquartile range $28,590]; P = .002). The overall contribution margin ratio was higher for vascular surgery consult cases (0.41) compared with control nonconsult cases (0.35). There was no difference in contribution margin and contribution margin ratio between planned and unplanned vascular surgery consult cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons provide essential operative assistance to other surgical specialties. This operative assistance is frequent and provides significant financial value, with high contribution margin and contribution margin ratio. Vascular surgeons, as consulting surgeons, enable the completion of highly complex cases and in this capacity provide significant financial value to the hospital.

Intraoperative Consultations to Acute Care Surgery at a Level I Trauma Center

Intraoperative consultations are an important component of acute care surgery (ACS). The nature of these consultations is incompletely characterized by the existing literature. The study objective was to define the characteristics of intraoperative consults managed by a mature ACS program at a Level I trauma center. All intraoperative consultations requested from the ACS service at LAC1USC Medical Center (January 2011–July 2016) were identified. Demographics, date/time of consultation, referring service, procedure data, and outcomes were abstracted. Sixty-four intra-operative consultations were identified. Patients had a mean age of 45 (range 21–64) and 84 per cent (n = 54) were female. Gynecology was the most frequent consulting service (n = 42, 66%), followed by urology (n = 12, 19%). Surgical intervention was required in 61 per cent (n = 39) and verbal advice with clinical follow-up was required in 39 per cent (n = 25). The most common procedures were repair of an injury (n = 19, 49%), usually to the small bowel or colon; resection of an incidental finding (n = 13, 33%), typically the appendix or a Meckel's diverticulum; and lysis of adhesions (n = 7, 18%). In conclusion, intraoperative consultation is provided by ACS to a wide range of consultants, especially gynecology and urology. These consults are most frequently requested for concern for iatrogenic injury. Both surgical and verbal interventions are used.

Intraoperative Vascular Surgical Consultation during Non-Vascular Surgeries in Tertiary Centers by Vascular Surgeon

Purpose

There are many types of intraoperative consultations by vascular surgeons during non-vascular surgery. Therefore, we examined the current state of intraoperative consultations during non-vascular surgery in a single center.

Materials and Methods

From January 2014 to December 2015, we reviewed records of 40 patients (0.3%) who received an intraoperative consultation from a vascular surgeon for 10,734 non-vascular surgeries in Inha University Hospital. We examined patient characteristics, operative details, and clinical results.

Results

There were 40 intraoperative vascular surgical consultations relating to bleeding (n=14, 35.0%), dissection from the vessel (n=13, 32.5%), arterial occlusion (n=10, 25.0%), and retroperitoneal approach (n=3, 7.5%). The locations of surgery were lower extremity (n=10, 25.0%), kidney (n=8, 20.0%), spine (n=6, 15.0%), pelvis (n=6, 15.0%), head and neck (n=4, 10.0%), abdomen (n=4, 10.0%), and upper extremity (n=2, 5.0%). The methods of surgery included primary closure or ligation (n=17, 42.5%), end-to-end anastomosis (n=12, 30.0%), bypass (n=10, 25.0%), thrombectomy (n=4, 10.0%), retroperitoneal approach (n=3, 7.5%), and embolization (n=2, 5.0%). Postoperative treatment was performed in the intensive care unit for 13 patients (32.5%), while 3 patients (7.5%) died following surgery.

Conclusion

Intraoperative consultation by vascular surgeons during non-vascular surgery occurred in approximately 0.3% of non-vascular surgeries. The region undergoing operation and type of surgery were variable. Therefore, it is necessary for vascular surgeons to have a comprehensive knowledge of vascular anatomy and to make rapid surgical decisions.