Vascular surgery: An essential hospital resource in modern health 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 2020-2022. 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 cases were defined as operations resulting directly from (1) iatrogenic complications from other services, (2) consultations for traumatic injury, or (3) primary surgeon for non-vascular cases. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate work relative value units (wRVU) per primary procedure code.

RESULTS

A total of 7821 surgeries were performed with vascular involvement over 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 was 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 ten non-surgical services. The most common service-level indication was iatrogenic vascular injury (n=87, 56.4%), and the majority of service-level cases required urgent or emergent surgery (n=123, 79.9%). These procedures generated an additional 2,150 wRVU 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.

CONCLUSION

Vascular surgery is crucial to the operation of all surgical services and many non-surgical 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 are 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.

Medical center reimbursement for vascular procedures has increased over time while professional reimbursement has declined

OBJECTIVE

The United States healthcare system uses different methods for assigning medical center reimbursement (MCR) and professional reimbursement (PR) for clinical services. We hypothesized that PR has not increased proportionately to MCR for the same vascular services.

METHODS

MCR and PR were compared for commonly performed inpatient and outpatient vascular procedures between 2012 and 2021. MCR was calculated using the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and outpatient prospective payment system. MCR is based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition and criteria for comorbidities and the occurrence of complications; thus, changes in MCR were reported as a range based on the degree of comorbidities and complications using the Diagnosis Related Group. PR was calculated using the Medicare physician fee schedule, which assigns a numerical work relative value unit to each surgical service, with final compensation determined by an annually adjusted conversion factor to yield a final dollar amount. The expected reimbursement based on the observed inflation during the study period using the consumer price index was calculated and compared to the actual reimbursement.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, MCR for inpatient procedures increased 20% to 26% for carotid endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoral endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoropopliteal bypass with vein, 14% to 19% for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 15% for aortobifemoral bypass. During the same period, PR increased 3.3% for carotid endarterectomy but decreased for femoral endarterectomy (-5.0%), femoropopliteal bypass (-4.6%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (-4.2%), and aortobifemoral bypass (-5.0%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 10% to 17% reduction but MCR outpaced inflation by 3.7% to 10%. For outpatient procedures, MCR increased 117% for tibial angioplasty, 24% for superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting, 62% for tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion, and 24% for iliac stenting but decreased 0.43% for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation and 7.6% for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). PR increased 0.91% for SFA stenting but decreased for tibial angioplasty (-17%), AVF creation (-6.4%), TDC insertion (-7.1%), iliac stenting (-3.8%), and RFA (-22%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 13% to 32% reduction. In contrast, MCR outpaced inflation 7.5% to 88% for tibial angioplasty, SFA stenting, TDC insertion, and iliac stenting but experienced a reduction for AVF (-13%) and RFA (-19%).

CONCLUSIONS

MCR for commonly performed vascular procedures has increased and outpaced inflation. In contrast, PR for these same services has decreased across all procedure types. This decrease in PR was exacerbated when adjusted for inflation. This inequity in the reimbursement methods between MCR and PR poses a threat to the viability of the physician workforce. Either changes to the reimbursement methods or a reallocation of reimbursement to physicians are imperative to sustain physician practices.

A Planned Multidisciplinary Surgical Approach to Treat Primary Pelvic Malignancies

The pelvic anatomy poses great challenges to orthopedic surgeons. Sarcomas are often large in size and typically enclosed in the narrow confines of the pelvis with the close proximity of vital structures. The aim of this study is to report a systematic planned multidisciplinary surgical approach to treat pelvic sarcomas. Seventeen patients affected by bone and soft tissue sarcomas of the pelvis, treated using a planned multidisciplinary surgical approach, combining the expertise of orthopedic oncology and other surgeons (colleagues from urology, vascular surgery, abdominal surgery, gynecology and plastic surgery), were included. Seven patients were treated with hindquarter amputation; 10 patients underwent excision of the tumor. Reconstruction of bone defects was conducted in six patients with a custom-made 3D-printed pelvic prosthesis. Thirteen patients experienced at least one complication. Well-organized multidisciplinary collaborations between each subspecialty are the cornerstone for the management of patients affected by pelvic sarcomas, which should be conducted in specialized centers. A multidisciplinary surgical approach is of paramount importance in order to obtain the best successful surgical results and adequate margins for achieving acceptable outcomes.

Characterizing endovascular aortic intervention outcomes for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialty

BACKGROUND

Evaluate patient outcomes after endovascular aortic interventions performed for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialties.

METHODS

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), fenestrated or branched repair (F-BEVAR), and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures were obtained from the Illinois Hospital Association Comparative Health Care and Hospital Data Reporting Services database from 2016 to 2019. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to determine outcomes by patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 4,935 procedures, 3,666 (74.3%) EVAR, 567 (11.5%) F-BEVAR, and 702 (14.2%) TEVAR were performed by vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Vascular surgeons performed interventions equally between hospital types while interventional radiologists primarily performed interventions in teaching hospitals (68.1%) and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons typically performed interventions in community hospitals (91.8% and 82.1%, respectively; P < .001). No differences in inpatient mortality were noted between specialties. Patients treated by interventional radiologists had increased odds of staying in the hospital ≥8 days (odd ration [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.19) and patients treated by interventional cardiologists had lower odds of being admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.95).

CONCLUSION

Differences in practice patterns among specialties performing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for nonruptured aneurysms suggest opportunities for collaboration to optimize quality of care.

The role of oncovascular surgery in gynecologic oncology surgery

Oncovascular surgery is a new term used to define tumor resection with simultaneous reconstruction of the great vessels when the tumor infiltrates or firmly adheres to such vessels. The benefit of oncovascular surgery has been widely described in patients with hepato-biliary-pancreatic cancers, retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma, and in other areas of gynecologic oncology, such as the lateral compartment of the pelvis, retroperitoneum, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic region, with an increase in complete resections and without increasing the morbidity and mortality rates. In the latter decades of the past century, several advances and accumulating scientific evidence led gynecologic oncologists to perform more thorough cytoreductive surgeries that included multivisceral resections. But to our knowledge, published studies on the frequency and relevance of vascular surgery in gynecological oncology are scarce. Gynecologic oncologists still do not receive formal training in vascular surgery and additionally, with the current reduction in experience with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, as well as other types of radical abdominal and pelvic surgeries, trainees will encounter fewer vascular injuries and the opportunity to deal with a variety of management types required. Well-organized collaboration between each subspecialty with a multidisciplinary approach and adequate pre-operative planning are pivotal. The aim of this review is to pave the way towards the understanding that patients with suspicion of great vessels' infiltration or encasement by tumor require personalized and specialized treatment with the need to form an oncovascular surgery team, and that it is necessary for gynecologic oncology surgeons to take a step forward in surgical training.

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.

The Orthopedic-Vascular Multidisciplinary Approach Improves Patient Safety in Surgery for Musculoskeletal Tumors: A Large-Volume Center Experience

Objective: Wide-margin resection is mandatory for malignant bone and soft tissue tumors. However, this increases the complexity of resections, especially when vessels are involved. Patients in this high-risk clinical setting could be surgically treated using the multidisciplinary orthopedic-vascular approach. This study was carried out in this healthcare organization to evaluate patient safety in term of oncologic outcomes and reduction of the complication rate. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 74 patients (37 males, 37 females; mean age 46 years, range 9–88) who underwent surgical excision for bone/soft tissue malignant tumors closely attached to vascular structures from October 2015 to February 2019. Vascular surgery consisted of isolation of at least one vessel (64 patients), bypass reconstruction (9 patients), and end-to-end anastomosis (1 patient). Mean follow-up was 27 months. Patients’ demographics, tumor characteristics, adjuvant treatments, type of orthopedic and vascular procedures, and oncologic and functional outcomes and complications were recorded. Results: Overall survival was 85% at 3 years follow-up. In total, 22 patients experienced at least one major complication requiring further surgery and 13 patients experienced at least one minor complication, whereas 17 reported deviations from the normal postoperative course without the need for pharmacological or interventional treatment. Major complications were higher in pelvic resections compared to limb-salvage procedures (p = 0.0564) and when surgical time was more than 4 h (p = 0.0364) at univariate analysis, whereas the most important multivariate independent predictors for major complications were pelvic resection (p = 0.0196) and preoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.0426). Conclusions: A multidisciplinary ortho-vascular approach for resection of malignant bone and soft tissue tumors tightly attached to important vascular structures should be considered a good clinical practice for patient safety.

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.

Vascular Surgeons Are Not Adequately Valued by Traditional Productivity Metrics

BACKGROUND

Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period.

METHODS

Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million).

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons.

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.

Oncovascular Surgery: Essential Roles of Vascular Surgeons in Cancer Surgery

For the modern practice of cancer surgery, the concept of oncovascular surgery (OVS), defined as cancer resection with concurrent ligation or reconstruction of a major vascular structure, can be very important. OVS for advanced cancers requires specialized procedures performed by a specialized multidisciplinary team. Roles of oncovascular surgeons are summarized as: a primary surgeon in vesselorigin tumors, a rescue surgeon treating complications during cancer surgery, and a consultant surgeon as a multidisciplinary team for cancer surgery. Vascular surgeons must show leadership in cancer surgery in cases of complex advanced diseases, such as angiosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, intravenous leiomyomatosis, retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma, iatrogenic injury of the major vessels during cancer surgery, pancreatic cancer with vascular invasion, extremity soft tissue sarcoma, melanoma and others.

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 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.