Use of Office Versus Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting and Associated Ancillary Services on Healthcare Cost Burden for Vasectomy Procedures

Office-based anesthesia: a contemporary update on outcomes, incentives, and controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The volume of office-based surgery (OBS) has surged over the last 25-30 years, however patients with increasing comorbidities are being considered for procedures in office locations. This review focuses on office-based surgery outcomes, financial incentives driving this change, and controversies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Healthcare economics appear to drive the push towards OBS with improved reimbursements, but there are rising out-of-pocket costs impacting patients. Plastic surgery has low complications, but procedures like buttock augmentation are associated with mortality. In ophthalmology, emerging controversial literature investigates the impact of anesthesia type on and whether anesthesia providers impact ophthalmology outcomes. Dental anesthesia continues to suffer occasional wrong-sided surgeries. Vascular interventions are being driven towards offices due to reimbursements, and may be safely performed. Meta-analyses of ear, nose, and throat in-office surgeries have low complication rates.

SUMMARY

The reported safety supports the proper selection of patients for the proper procedure in the right location. Anesthesiologists need to develop and implement safe and efficient systems to optimize patient outcomes in outpatient office settings. Further research and uniform standardized outcomes tracking are needed in the emerging specialties performing office-based surgery.

Identifying the Most Appropriate ACDF Patients for an Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Pilot Study Using Inpatient and Outpatient Hospital Data

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES

Using a national cohort of patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in an inpatient/outpatient setting, the current objectives were to: (1) outline preoperative factors that were associated with complications, and (2) describe potentially catastrophic complications so that this data can help stratify the best suited patients for an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) compared with a hospital setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ASCs are increasingly utilized for spinal procedures and represent an enormous opportunity for cost savings. However, ASCs have come under scrutiny for profit-driven motives, lack of adequate safety measures, and inability to handle complications.

METHODS

Adults who underwent ACDF between 2008 and 2014 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Inclusion criteria were: principal procedure ACDF [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 22551, 22552], elective, neurological/orthopedic surgeons, length of stayof 0/1 day, and being discharged home. The primary outcome was presence of any complication. The secondary outcome was occurrence of potentially catastrophic complications.

RESULTS

A total of 12,169 patients underwent elective ACDF with a length of stay of 0/1 day and were discharged directly home. A total of 179 (1.47%) patients experienced a complication. Multivariate logistic regression revealed the following factors were significantly associated with a complication: Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >3, history of transient ischemic attack/cerebrovascular accident, abnormal bilirubin, and operative time of >2 hours. Approximate comorbidity score cutoffs associated with <2% risk of complication were: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)≤2, CCI≤2, modified frailty index (mFI) ≤0.182. A total of 51 (0.4%) patients experienced potentially catastrophic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results represent a preliminary, pilot analysis using inpatient/outpatient data in selecting appropriate patients for an ASC. The incidence of potentially catastrophic complication was 0.4%. These results should be validated in multi-institution studies to further optimize appropriate patient selection for ASCs.

Single-incision Midurethral Sling by the Dynamic Intraoperative Standing Sling Technique as an Office-based Procedure: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, feasibility, and short-term success of placing Solyx (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) single-incision midurethral sling (SIMUS) using the Dynamic Intraoperative Standing Sling Technique (DISST) in an office setting under local anesthesia.

METHODS

The safety and efficacy of the in-office Solyx DISST procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence was assessed 6 months from the procedure. Improvement in stress urinary incontinence was measured using validated questionnaires (Medical, Epidemiologic, and Social Aspects of Aging, MESA; Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7, IIQ-7; Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function, PISQ-12) and by a negative standing provocative stress test. Postoperative complications were documented along with subjective pain diaries, return to work/activities, and overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

From July 2019 through February 2020, 20 subjects underwent in-office Solyx procedure by the DISST technique. Six of the 20 (30%) subjects required intraoperative sling adjustments. There were no complications as related to the office-based procedure. Participants reported a favorable intraoperative experience. Subjects had excellent postoperative pain control and early return to work and normal activities. At 6 months, all 20 subjects had negative standing provocative stress tests, showed statistically significant improvements on MESA, IIQ-7, and PISQ-12, and reported high satisfaction and acceptance for the procedure and outcomes. There were no late (>6 weeks) complications associated with the Solyx procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears safe and feasible to perform Solyx SIMUS by the DISST method in the office. Subjects remained dry and reported excellent improvement in symptoms and quality of life 6 months from surgery.