Hand Surgery in the Ambulatory Surgery Center

Are Quality Scores in the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System Associated With Outcomes After Outpatient Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) ties reimbursement incentives to clinician performance to improve healthcare quality. It is unclear whether the MIPS quality score can accurately distinguish between high-performing and low-performing clinicians.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What were the rates of unplanned hospital visits (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions) within 7, 30, and 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries? (2) Was there any association of MIPS quality scores with the risk of an unplanned hospital visit (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions)?

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 605,946 outpatient orthopaedic surgeries were performed in New York State according to the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Of those, 56,772 patients were identified as Medicare beneficiaries and were therefore potentially eligible. A further 34% (19,037) were excluded because of missing surgeon identifier, age younger than 65 years, residency outside New York State, emergency department visit on the same day as outpatient surgery, observation stay on the same claim as outpatient surgery, and concomitant high-risk or eye procedures, leaving 37,735 patients for analysis. The database does not include a list of all state residents and thus does not allow for censoring of patients who move out of state. We chose this dataset because it includes nearly all hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in a large geographic area (New York State) and hence is not limited by sampling bias. We included 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical encounters among Medicare beneficiaries in New York State from 2018 to 2019. For the 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical procedures included in our study, the mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 73 ± 7 years, 84% (31,550) were White, and 59% (22,071) were women. Our key independent variable was the MIPS quality score percentile (0 to 19th, 20th to 39th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th) for orthopaedic surgeons. Clinicians in the MIPS program may receive a bonus or penalty based on the overall MIPS score, which ranges from 0 to 100 and is a weighted score based on four subscores: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost. The MIPS quality score, which attempts to reward clinicians providing superior quality of care, accounted for 50% and 45% of the overall MIPS score in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Our main outcome measures were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. To determine the association between MIPS quality scores and unplanned hospital visits, we estimated multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models controlling for MIPS quality scores; patient-level (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and comorbidities), facility-level (such as bed size and teaching status), surgery and surgeon-level (such as surgical procedure and surgeon volume) covariates; and facility-level random effects. We then used these models to estimate the adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits across MIPS quality score percentiles after adjusting for covariates in the multivariable models.

RESULTS

In total, 2% (606 of 37,735), 2% (783 of 37,735), and 3% (1013 of 37,735) of encounters had an unplanned hospital visit within 7, 30, or 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery, respectively. Most hospital visits within 7 days (95% [576 of 606]), 30 days (94% [733 of 783]), or 90 days (91% [924 of 1013]) were because of emergency department visits. We found very small differences in unplanned hospital visits by MIPS quality scores, with the 20th to 39th percentile of MIPS quality scores having 0.71% points (95% CI -1.19% to -0.22%; p = 0.004), 0.68% points (95% CI -1.26% to -0.11%; p = 0.02), and 0.75% points (95% CI -1.42% to -0.08%; p = 0.03) lower than the 0 to 19th percentile at 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. There was no difference in adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits between patients undergoing surgery with a surgeon in the 0 to 19th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th percentiles at 7, 30, or 90 days.

CONCLUSION

We found that the rates of unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries were low and primarily driven by emergency department visits. We additionally found only a small association between MIPS quality scores for individual physicians and the risk of an unplanned hospital visit after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. These findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing postoperative emergency department visits may be the best target to reduce overall postoperative unplanned hospital visits and that the MIPS program should be eliminated or modified to more strongly link reimbursement to risk-adjusted patient outcomes, thereby better aligning incentives among patients, surgeons, and the Centers for Medicare ad Medicaid Services. Future work could seek to evaluate the association between MIPS scores and other surgical outcomes and evaluate whether annual changes in MIPS score weighting are independently associated with clinician performance in the MIPS and regarding clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

An Examination of Complication Rates and Surgery Durations in Elective Hand Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges to hand surgeons as hospitals worked to adapt to unprecedented demands on resources and personnel. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes in elective hand surgery using a large national database. Methods: This is a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) dataset for patients undergoing elective hand procedures in 2019 and 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, procedural factors, and outcomes were compared between cases occurring in 2019 and 2020. Multivariable regressions were performed to evaluate the association between operative year and 30-day outcomes. Results: A total of 8971 patients were included with a mean age of 52.2 ± 16.7 and 52.8 ± 16.4 years for the 2019 and 2020 cohorts, respectively. Compared to the 2019 cohort, the 2020 cohort demonstrated higher prevalence of obesity (43.3% vs 40.8%, P = 0.019), hypertension requiring medication (32.9% vs 35.0%; P = 0.046), and American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3 (30.4% vs 27.0%; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in outcomes including 30-day readmissions, reoperation, or complications between cohorts on unadjusted or multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Elective hand cases performed during the pandemic were associated with longer operating times and more frequently involved patients with greater comorbidities. Despite these differences, patients undergoing surgery during the pandemic demonstrated similar outcomes including complications, readmissions, and reoperations compared to those undergoing surgery the year prior, suggesting that even in the setting of a pandemic, performing elective surgery is safe without an increased risk to the patient.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers Reduce Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Isolated Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair, but Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditures Are Increasing at a Faster Rate Than Total Healthcare Utilization Reimbursement From Payers

PURPOSE

To categorize and trend annual out-of-pocket expenditures for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) patients relative to total healthcare utilization (THU) reimbursement and compare drivers of patient out-of-pocket expenditures (POPE) in a granular fashion via analyses by insurance type and surgical setting.

METHODS

Patients who underwent outpatient arthroscopic RCR in the United States from 2013 to 2018 were identified from the IBM MarketScan Database. Primary outcome variables were total POPE and THU reimbursement, which were calculated for all claims in the 9-month perioperative period. Trends in outcome variables over time and differences across insurance types were analyzed. Multivariable analysis was performed to investigate drivers of POPE.

RESULTS

A total of 52,330 arthroscopic RCR patients were identified. Between 2013 and 2018, median POPE increased by 47.5% ($917 to $1,353), and median THU increased by 9.3% ($11,964 to $13,076). Patients with high deductible insurance plans paid $1,910 toward their THU, 52.5% more than patients with preferred provider plans ($1,253, P = .001) and 280.5% more than patients with managed care plans ($502, P = .001). All components of POPE increased over the study period, with the largest observed increase being POPE for the immediate procedure (P = .001). On multivariable analysis, out-of-network facility, out-of-network surgeon, and high-deductible insurance most significantly increased POPE.

CONCLUSIONS

POPE for arthroscopic RCR increased at a higher rate than THU over the study period, demonstrating that patients are paying an increasing proportion of RCR costs. A large percentage of this increase comes from increasing POPE for the immediate procedure. Out-of-network facility status increased POPE 3 times more than out-of-network surgeon status, and future cost-optimization strategies should focus on facility-specific reimbursements in particular. Last, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) significantly reduced POPE, so performing arthroscopic RCRs at ASCs is beneficial to cost-minimization efforts.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study highlights that although payers have increased reimbursement for RCR, patient out-of-pocket expenditures have increased at a much higher rate. Furthermore, this study elucidates trends in and drivers of patient out-of-pocket payments for RCR, providing evidence for development of cost-optimization strategies and counseling of patients undergoing RCR.

Growing utilization of ambulatory spine surgery in Medicare patients from 2010-2021

Background

There is growing interest in transitioning various surgical procedures to the outpatient care setting. However, for Medicare patients, the site of service for surgical procedures is influenced by regulations within the Inpatient and Outpatient Prospective Payment Systems. The purpose of this study is to quantify changes in utilization of outpatient spine surgery within the Medicare population, as well as to determine changes in outpatient volume after removal of a procedure from the "inpatient-only" list.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of Medicare billing database information for selected spine procedures included in the Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) public use files from 2010-2021. These files include aggregated data from Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims, published yearly. Procedures from Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS) code ranges 22010-22899 and 62380-63103 were selected for analysis, limited to surgical services delivered in the inpatient, hospital outpatient department (HOPD), and ambulatory surgical center (ASC) settings. For each HCPCS code included, estimates of the total number of services and corresponding changes in volume were calculated.

Results

Within the range of codes included in the study, the total number of outpatient spine procedures rose approximately 193% from 2010 to 2021, with compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for outpatient procedures per year of 9.9% for HOPDs and 15.7% for ASCs (-2.2% for inpatient procedures). Within this period, the ASC list grew from 12 procedures to 58 procedures. In 2021, the highest volume ASC procedure was HCPCS 63047, at approximately 4970 procedures.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates a trend of increasing utilization of HOPDs and ASCs for spine procedures among Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2021. Though HOPDs are currently more widely utilized, the ongoing additions of spine procedures to the ASC covered procedures list may shift this balance.

Hip Arthroscopy Trends: Increasing Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs, Lower Surgeon Reimbursement, and Cost Reduction With Utilization of Ambulatory Surgery Centers

PURPOSE

To (1) report on trends in immediate procedure reimbursement, patient out-of-pocket expenditures, and surgeon reimbursement in hip arthroscopy (2) compare trends in ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) versus outpatient hospitals (OH) utilization; (3) quantify the cost differences (if any) associated with ASC versus OH settings; and 4) determine the factors that predict ASC utilization for hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

The cohort for this descriptive epidemiology study was any patient over 18 years identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Encounter database who underwent an outpatient hip arthroscopy, identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes, in the United States from 2013 to 2017. Immediate procedure reimbursement, patient out-of-pocket expenditure, and surgeon reimbursement were calculated, and a multivariable model was used to determine the influence of specific factors on these outcome variables. Statistically significant P values were less than .05, and significant standardized differences were more than 0.1.

RESULTS

The cohort included 20,335 patients. An increasing trend in ASC utilization was observed (P = .001), and ASC utilization for hip arthroscopy was 32.4% in 2017. Patient out-of-pocket expenditures for femoroacetabular impingement surgery increased 24.3% over the study period (P = .003), which was higher than the rate for immediate procedure reimbursement (4.2%; P = .007). ASCs were associated with $3,310 (28.8%; P = .001) reduction in immediate procedure reimbursement and $47 (6.2%; P = .001) reduction in patient out-of-pocket expenditure per hip arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

ASCs provide a significant cost difference for hip arthroscopy. Although there is an increasing trend toward ASC utilization, it remains relatively low at 32.4% in 2017. Thus, there are opportunities for expanded ASC utilization, which is associated with significant immediate procedure reimbursement difference of $3,310 and patient out-of-pocket expenditure difference of $47 per hip arthroscopy case, ultimately benefiting healthcare systems, surgeons, and patients alike.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Reducing Opioid Exposure Following Common Ambulatory Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic is a health crisis in the United States. Physicians contribute to this problem by overprescribing opioids. Ambulatory hand surgery (AHS) is common in the United States and associated with overprescribing of opioids. Education and guidance regarding the effectiveness of nonopioid compared with opioid interventions for pain management following ambulatory hand procedures are lacking. We assessed the current literature to suggest evidence-based protocols for postoperative analgesia.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Studies comparing nonopioid with opioid treatments for pain management following AHS were identified. Studies investigating opioid-sparing strategies after AHS were also identified. Evidence was examined to determine efficacy of nonopioid interventions and to provide recommendations for optimal nonopioid protocols and opioid-sparing strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 510 studies were identified in the search with 18 meeting inclusion criteria. High-level evidence demonstrated efficacy of nonopioid interventions for pain management following AHS (levels I and II evidence). Results provided evidence-based guidelines for recommendations of nonopioid treatment protocols and opioid-sparing strategies (levels I and II evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated nonopioid interventions are adequate in multiple aspects of pain management compared with opioid treatments. Recommendations were established for two nonopioid treatment protocols, and for an opioid-sparing intervention (levels I and II evidence). The evidence provided in this review should be strongly considered for pain management guidance following AHS and provides a means to decrease opioid overprescribing in the United States.

Value-Based Health Care in Hand Surgery: Where Are We & Where Do We Go From Here?

Health care delivery is broken. The cost of care continues to skyrocket and the outcomes most important to patients are often a mystery. Further, care is often delivered via a fee-for-service model where surgeons are rewarded for the quantity, not the quality, of services provided. Such a health care delivery system is not sustainable and does not incentivize stakeholders to focus on the most important element of the health care delivery "puzzle": the patient. Fortunately, we are in the midst of transforming our health care delivery system, with a focus on optimizing the value of care delivery (ie, health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full care cycle). In hand surgery, progress has been made as part of this health system evolution. However, there remains much to accomplish. In this article, the authors review the 6 components of a strategic agenda for moving to a high-value health care delivery system for hand surgery, focusing on where we are today and where we need to go from here.

Site of service of irrigation and debridement of open finger and hand fractures: a retrospective review of trends and outcomes

Background

Irrigation and debridement (I&D) of open finger and hand fractures can be performed in the emergency department as opposed to the operating room (OR), though reports of postoperative infection rates vary greatly. The authors hypothesized that I&D of open finger and hand fractures in the OR would decrease over time. They also describe rates of postoperative infection, reoperation, readmission, and costs.

Methods

A large nationwide administrative claims dataset was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent I&D after open finger and hand fractures from 2007 to 2016. The incidence of I&D procedures performed outside the OR was reported and trends over the study period were assessed.

Results

The proportion of open finger and hand fractures that underwent I&D outside the OR did not change significantly over time. Rates of postoperative surgical site infection, readmission, and reoperation were higher in the OR cohort at 90 days after the index stay. The OR cohort had greater total costs and out-of-pocket costs for the index stay. At 90 days, the OR cohort had greater total cost, but out-of-pocket costs were similar.

Conclusions

Site of service for treatment of open finger and hand fractures has not significantly changed from 2007 to 2016. Given that total costs are significantly greater among patients undergoing I&D in the OR, prospective trials are needed to assess the safety of treating open finger and hand fractures outside of the OR to optimize management of these injuries.

Level of Evidence

III.

Patient-Related Risk Factors Associated With Surgical Site Complications After Elective Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify independent risk factors associated with an increased rate of surgical site complications after elective hand surgery.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent elective hand, wrist, forearm, and elbow surgery over a 10-year period at a single institution. Electronic medical records were reviewed, and information regarding patient demographics, past medical and social history, perioperative laboratory values, procedures performed, and surgical complications was collected. Surgical site complications included surgical site infections, seromas or hematomas, and delayed wound healing or wound dehiscence. A univariate analysis was then performed to identify potential risk factors, which were then included in a multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3261 patients who underwent elective hand surgery and met the above inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this study. The mean age was 57 years, with 65% female and 35% male patients. The overall surgical complication rate was 2.2%. Univariate analysis of patient factors identified male sex; number of procedures >1; history of drug, alcohol, or smoking use; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III and IV; and serum albumin <3.5 mg/dL to be significantly associated with complications. However, multivariate regression analysis identified that only ASA class III and IV (odds ratio = 3.27) was significantly associated with surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients classified as ASA class III or IV were identified to be at a significantly increased risk of complications following elective hand surgery. Health factors which triage patients into these 2 groups may represent potentially modifiable factors to mitigate perioperative risk in the elective hand surgery population.

Risk Factors and Reasons for Emergency Department Visits Within 30 Days of Elective Hand Surgery: An Analysis of 3,261 Patients

Background: The frequency of hand and elbow surgeries occurring in outpatient and elective settings is on the rise. Emergency department (ED) visits in the postoperative period are increasingly used as quality measures for surgical care. The aim of this study is to determine the number of postoperative ED visits, the primary reason for these visits, and to identify risk factors associated with these visits. Methods: We examined all elective hand and elbow procedures performed at two hospitals within a single healthcare network between 2008 and 2017. A total of 3,261 patients met the study criteria. Descriptive statistics were calculated for our population, followed by univariate and multivariate analyses, to identify risk and protective factors associated with ED visits in the first 30 days after surgery. Results: Eighty-seven of 3,261 patients presented to the ED within 30 days of their operation (2.7%). The most common reasons for ED visits were related to pain (28.7%), swelling (26.4%), and concerns for infection (20.7%). Univariate analysis indicated history of drug use, number of procedures, smoking history, and serum albumin <3.5 mg/dL as risk factors for returns to the ED. Multivariate analysis identified history of drug use, number of procedures, and serum albumin <3.5 mg/dL as independent risk factors. Smoking history failed to achieve statistical significance as an independent risk factor. Both univariate and multivariate analyses identified age >60 years as protective for postoperative ED visits. Conclusions: ED visits within the first 30 days after elective hand surgery are relatively common, despite remarkably low complication rates among these procedures. This information may help to improve risk stratification in these patients, and to aid in the development of enhanced postoperative follow-up strategies to reduce unnecessary utilization of emergency medical services. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

Joint-Venture Ambulatory Surgery Centers: The Perfect Partnership

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory surgery growth has increased in the last few decades as ambulatory surgery centers have been shown to succeed in cost efficiencies through their smaller size and breadth, specialization of care, and ability to quickly participate in perioperative process improvement and education.

METHODS

A 5-year retrospective fiscal review was performed for all Northwell Health-physician ambulatory surgery center joint ventures. The outcome measures studied included model of ownership, specialty types, and gross revenue. Additional facility characteristics were studied, including growth trajectory, facility size, and cost to build a de novo facility.

RESULTS

Eleven free-standing ambulatory surgery centers were identified at Northwell Health during the 5-year study period. The total gross revenue for all Northwell clinical joint ventures for 2019 alone was $102,854,000. Northwell Health is a majority stakeholder in eight of their joint venture ambulatory surgery centers, with an average Northwell ownership of 53 percent and an average number of physician owners per facility of 11. The number of hospital-physician joint-venture ambulatory surgery centers grew from two to 11 facilities during the study period (450 percent). Surgical volume followed a similar trajectory, increasing 295 percent over the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS

The ambulatory surgery center setting provides a vast number of possibilities for key stakeholders, including patients themselves, to benefit from financial and clinical efficiencies. Ambulatory surgery centers have been popular, as they meet patient expectations for convenience of elective surgery, reduce payer and clinical pressures to minimize length of stay in hospitals, and achieve similar or higher quality care with less intense resources.

Unplanned Return to the Operating Room in Upper-Extremity Surgery: Incidence and Reason for Return

PURPOSE

Complications after upper-extremity surgery are generally infrequent. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of early unplanned return to the operating room (URTO) within 3 months after surgery) in upper-extremity surgical procedures. Our hypotheses were that the rate of URTO in upper-extremity surgery would be low and that surgically treated fractures would be at greatest risk for complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all upper-extremity surgical procedures performed at a large academic practice of fellowship-trained hand surgeons over a 5-year period. A chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent a second surgery within 3 months of the initial surgery. The surgical billing database was queried to determine the incidence of URTO per Current Procedural Terminology code.

RESULTS

There were 422 Current Procedural Terminology codes with URTO out of a total of 62,608, for an incidence of 0.6%. The most frequently performed procedures were carpal tunnel release (10,674; 0.1% URTO), trigger finger release (4,549; 0.5% URTO), and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for distal radius fracture (2,728; 1.2% URTO). Procedures with the highest incidences of URTO were open reduction and internal fixation of the ulna (4.9%) and excision of the olecranon bursa (4.1%). Traumatic injuries were more commonly associated with URTO compared with elective procedures. Bony trauma and soft tissue trauma had URTO incidences of 1.4% and 1.1%, respectively, whereas bony elective and soft tissue elective cases were 0.6% and 0.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 90-day URTO rate after upper-extremity surgery was low but higher than previously reported 30-day reoperation rates. Elbow procedures were most likely to result in URTO, as were procedures relating to bony and soft tissue trauma. Based on these results, we are able to counsel patients that the most common procedures we perform have low URTO rates, but surgically treated fractures are at greatest risk.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Improved efficiency of sialendoscopy procedures at an ambulatory surgery center

OBJECTIVES

To compare time spent on day of surgery and post-surgical outcomes for sialendoscopy procedures at an ambulatory surgery center versus in a hospital operating room.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review for patients who underwent sialendoscopy for sialadenitis or sialolithiasis from March 2017 to May 2020 were included. Surgery location (ambulatory surgery center or hospital operating room) was compared. Primary outcomes included total time in hospital, operative time, total time in operating room. and recovery time. Secondary outcomes included rate of symptoms resolutions, requiring further medical management, and requiring further surgical intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 321 procedures were included. Sialendoscopy in an ambulatory surgery center compared to main operating room decreased median hospital time (166 min reduction, p < 0.001), operative time (18 min reduction, p < 0.001), total time in operating room (34 min reduction, p < 0.001), and recovery time (64 min reduction, p < 0.001). Sialendoscopy in an ambulatory surgery center had similar rates of post-operative resolution of symptoms and further medical or surgical intervention compared to procedures in a hospital operating room.

CONCLUSION

Sialendoscopy can be safely performed in an ambulatory surgery center for sialadenitis or appropriate sialolithiasis cases while decreasing hospital time, operative time, total time in operating room time, and recovery time.

Ambulatory Endoscopic Thyroidectomy via a Chest-Breast Approach Has an Acceptable Safety Profile for Thyroid Nodule

INTRODUCTION

With the growing esthetic requirements, endoscopic thyroidectomy develops rapidly and is widely accepted by practitioners and patients to avoid the neck scar caused by open thyroidectomy. Although ambulatory open thyroidectomy is adopted by multiple medical centers, the safety and potential of ambulatory endoscopic thyroidectomy via a chest-breast approach (ETCBA) is poorly investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with thyroid nodules who received conventional or ambulatory ETCBA at Xiangya hospital, Central South University from January 2017 to June 2020 were retrospectively included. The incidence of postoperative complications, 30-days readmission rate, financial cost, duration of hospitalization, mental health were mainly investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 260 patients were included with 206 (79.2%) suffering from thyroid carcinoma, while 159 of 260 received ambulatory ETCBA. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications (P=0.249) or 30-days readmission rate (P=1.000). In addition, The mean economic cost of the ambulatory group had a 29.5% reduction compared with the conventional group (P<0.001). Meanwhile, the duration of hospitalization of the ambulatory group was also significantly shorter than the conventional group (P<0.001). Patients received ambulatory ETCBA showed a higher level of anxiety (P=0.041) and stress (P=0.016). Subgroup analyses showed consistent results among patients with thyroid cancer with a 12.9% higher complication incidence than the conventional ETCBA (P=0.068).

CONCLUSION

Ambulatory ETCBA is as safe as conventional ETCBA for selective patients with thyroid nodules or thyroid cancer, however with significant economic benefits and shorter duration of hospitalization. Extra attention should be paid to manage the anxiety and stress of patients who received ambulatory ETCBA.

Ambulatory thyroidectomy is safe and beneficial in papillary thyroid carcinoma: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Currently, no randomized controlled trial has been performed to investigate the safety profiles, economic benefit and mental health of ambulatory thyroidectomy in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with PTC were enrolled in this study and were randomly assigned to ambulatory group and control group. The safety profiles, economic benefit and mental health were investigated.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eleven patients completed the study. There was no significant difference in demographic or tumor index. The incidence of complications was not significantly different (P = .631). The economic cost was significantly lower (P < .001) and hospitalization was significantly shorter (P < .001) in ambulatory group. No significant difference was shown in depression (P = .758) and stress disorder (P = .390). However, the ambulatory group showed a higher point of anxiety (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The ambulatory thyroidectomy is safe in patients with PTC, with significant benefits of economic cost and hospitalization.

Emergency Department Utilization After Outpatient Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify the utilization rate and most common reasons for presentation to the emergency department (ED) after elective outpatient hand surgery and to determine preoperative risk factors for these ED visits.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective hand surgery at an ambulatory surgery center between 2014 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated using the New York and Florida State Databases. The primary outcome was all-cause 7- and 30-day ED utilization rates. Reasons for presentation to the ED were recorded and manually stratified. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of ED utilization.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2015, 212,506 procedures were identified; the 7- and 30-day ED visit rates were 1.8% and 4.4%, respectively. Postoperative pain was the most common cause of an ED visit after outpatient hand surgery at 7 days (25.4%) and 30 days (16.1%) postoperatively. Overall, 98% of patients presenting to the ED for postoperative pain were subsequently discharged home. After controlling for confounding, comorbid congestive heart failure, chronic lung disease, diabetes, renal failure, schizophrenia, and depression were independent risk factors for an ED visit at up to 30 days postoperatively. Those with Medicare insurance were 94% more likely to present to the ED within 30 days than those with private health insurance, whereas those with Medicaid were more than three times as likely to present to the ED as those with private insurance.

DISCUSSION

ED utilization after outpatient hand surgery is low, with postoperative pain being the most common cause of an ED visit at all time points. Nearly 98% of patients presenting to the ED for postoperative pain are subsequently discharged home.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Cohort.

Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Ambulatory Surgical Setting: Outcomes From a Large Urological Group Practice

BACKGROUND

The definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction is the surgical implantation of a penile prosthesis, of which the most common type is the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device. IPP surgery in outpatient freestanding ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) is becoming more prevalent as payers and health systems alike look to reduce healthcare costs.

AIM

To evaluate IPP surgical outcomes in an ASC as compared to contemporaneously-performed hospital surgeries.

METHODS

A database of all patients undergoing IPP implantation by practitioners in the largest private community urology group practice in the United States, from January 1, 2013 to August 1, 2019, was prospectively compiled and retrospectively reviewed. Cohorts of patients having IPP implantation performed in the hospital vs ASC setting were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was to compare surgical data (procedural and surgical times, need for hospital transfer from ASC) and outcomes (risk for device infection, erosion, and need for surgical revision) between ASC and hospital-based surgery groups.

RESULTS

A total of 923 patients were included for this analysis, with 674 (73%) having ASC-based surgery and 249 (27%) hospital-based, by a total of 33 surgeons. Median procedural (99.5 vs 120 minutes, P < .001) and surgical (68 vs 75 minutes, P < .001) times were significantly shorter in the ASC. While the risk for device erosion and need for surgical revision were similar between groups, there was no higher risk for prosthetic infection when surgery was performed in the ASC (1.7% vs 4.4% [hospital], P = .02), corroborated by logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 0.39, P = .03). The risk for postoperative transfer of an ASC patient to the hospital was low (0.45%). The primary reason for mandated hospital-based surgery was medical (51.4%), though requirement as a result of insurance directive (39.7%) was substantial.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

IPP implantation in the ASC is safe, has similar outcomes compared to hospital-based surgery with a low risk for need for subsequent hospital transfer.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

The strengths of this study include the large patient population in this analysis as well as the real-world nature of our practice. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the review as well as the potential for residual confounding.

CONCLUSION

ASC-based IPP implantation is safe, with shorter surgical and procedural times compared to those cases performed in the hospital setting, with similar functional outcomes. These data suggest no added benefit to hospital-based surgery in terms of prosthetic infection risk. Weinberg AC, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Ambulatory Surgical Setting: Outcomes From a Large Urological Group Practice. J Sex Med 2020;17:1025-1032.

Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation in the Ambulatory Setting: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction is a common problem that may be definitively treated with the implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). The preponderance of available data on IPP surgery derives from institutional studies, most notably from academic centers or large single-surgeon series, where the majority of procedures are performed in a hospital setting. Because insurance companies and health systems look to reduce health care costs, IPP surgery in outpatient freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) is becoming more prevalent.

AIM

To review the utility of surgery in an ASC setting and to explore its role in the modern practice of urology, focusing on IPP implantation.

METHODS

A critical review was performed of the literature on ambulatory surgery, with specific focus on IPP surgery, using the PubMed database. Key search terms and phrases included erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory surgery center, outpatient surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure was the use of IPP implantation in an ASC.

RESULTS

In contemporary surgical practice, the implementation of ambulatory surgery in free-standing centers is increasing. The principal benefits include reducing cost and improving efficiency. Studies on the modern use of IPPs support the prospect of implantation in an ambulatory setting, which can achieve similar outcomes to surgeries classically performed in the inpatient hospital setting. Novel approaches to anesthesia, surgical, and nursing care have revolutionized IPP surgery so that it can now be safely and effectively performed in the ambulatory setting.

CONCLUSION

The role of ambulatory IPP implantation has increased, with the majority of cases being performed outside the hospital. Although there will always be a need for hospital-based surgery, such as significant medical comorbidities, more studies demonstrating the safety and feasibility of ambulatory surgery are needed. For those men who would otherwise be candidates for ambulatory surgery but whose insurance mandates hospital-based treatment, such studies proving utility, safety, and reduced cost could inspire policy change and broaden the ambulatory practice of IPP surgery. Segal RL, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation in the Ambulatory Setting: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:338-347.