Concurrent bariatric operations and association with perioperative outcomes: registry based cohort study

Overlapping otolaryngologic surgery: Safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Surgical procedures scheduled staggered between two operating rooms increase efficiency by eliminating turnover time. However, the practice might increase the surgeon's fatigue. Overlapping surgery has been assumed to be safe because no critical portions of procedures are performed simultaneously in two rooms, but there is little evidence in the literature to support that assumption for otolaryngologic surgery, and there is no evidence comparing non-overlapping and overlapping surgical outcomes for a single surgeon with all confounding factors controlled.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study that included a consecutive sample of adult subjects who underwent otolaryngologic laryngeal or otologic surgery between June 2013 and March 2016. All procedures were performed by the same surgical team and surgeon who had block time with 2-rooms every other week and 1-room on alternate weeks. The incidence of surgical complications was assessed in the perioperative period. Duration of surgery and time-in-room also were evaluated, as were surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 496 surgeries were assigned to either overlapping-surgery (n = 346) or non-overlapping-surgery (n = 150) cohorts. Overlapping-surgery was a significant predictor for increased time-in-room on multivariate analysis but was not a significant predictor for surgery duration. Rate of complications, hospital readmission, emergency department visit, reoperation, mortality, and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Overlapping surgery does not hinder patient safety or functional outcomes in patients undergoing otolaryngologic operations such as voice or ear surgery.

The effect of overlapping surgical scheduling on operating theatre productivity: a narrative review

This article reviews the background to overlapping surgery, in which a single senior surgeon operates across two parallel operating theatres; anaesthesia is induced and surgery commenced by junior surgeons in the second operating theatre while the lead surgeon completes the operation in the first. We assess whether there is any theoretical basis to expect increased productivity in terms of number of operations completed. A review of observational studies found that while there is a perception of increased surgical output for one surgeon, there is no evidence of increased productivity compared with two surgeons working in parallel. There is potential for overlapping surgery to have some positive impact in situations where turnover times between cases are long, operations are short (<2 h) and where 'critical portions' of surgery constitute about half of the total operation time. However, any advantages must be balanced against safety, ethical and training concerns.

Surgeon Perspectives on Benefits and Downsides of Overlapping Surgery: In-depth, Qualitative Interviews

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to characterize surgeon perspectives regarding the benefits and downsides of conducting overlapping surgery.

BACKGROUND

Although surgeons are key stakeholders in current discussions surrounding overlapping surgery, little has been published regarding their opinions on the practice. Further characterization of surgeon perspectives is needed to guide future studies and policy development regarding overlapping surgery.

METHODS

Study information was sent to all members of 3 professional surgical societies. Interested individuals were eligible to participate if they identified as attending surgeons in an academic setting who work with trainees. Purposive selection was used to diversify surgeons interviewed across multiple dimensions, including subspecialty and opinion regarding appropriateness of overlapping surgery. In-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with participants regarding their opinions on overlapping surgery.

RESULTS

The 51 surgeons interviewed identified a wide array of potential benefits and disadvantages of overlapping surgery, some of which have not previously been measured, including downsides to surgeon wellness and patient experience, less surgeon control over procedures, and difficulty in scheduling cases. Interviewees often disagreed as to whether overlapping surgery negatively or positively affects each dimension discussed, particularly regarding the impact on resident training.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of the novel perspectives presented here will allow for targeted assessment of physician perspectives in future quantitative studies and increase the likelihood that variables measured encompass the range of factors that surgeons find meaningful and relevant. Priority areas of future research should include examining effects of overlapping surgery on surgical training and surgeon wellness.

A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Management of Sleeve Gastrectomy Leaks

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery leaks result in significant morbidity and mortality. Experts report variable therapeutic approaches, without uniform guidelines or consensus.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathogenesis, risk factors, prevention, and treatment of gastric sleeve leaks, with a focus on endoscopic approaches. In addition, the efficacy and success rates of different treatment modalities are assessed.

DESIGN

A comprehensive review was conducted using a thorough literature search of 5 online electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science) from the time of their inception through March 2020. Studies evaluating gastric sleeve leaks were included. MeSH terms related to "endoscopic," "leak," "sleeve," "gastrectomy," "anastomotic," and "bariatric" were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 2418 studies of which 438 were incorporated into the review. Shock and peritonitis necessitate early surgical intervention for leaks. Endoscopic therapies in acute and early leaks involve modalities with a focus on one of: (i) defect closure, (ii) wall diversion, or (iii) wall exclusion. Surgical revision is required if endoscopic therapies fail to control leaks after 6 months. Chronic leaks require one or more endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical approaches for fluid collection drainage to facilitate adequate healing. Success rates depend on provider and center expertise.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management of leaks post sleeve gastrectomy is a minimally invasive and effective alternative to surgery. Their effect may vary based on clinical presentation, timing or leak morphology, and should be tailored to the appropriate endoscopic modality of treatment.

[Simultaneous surgery for complicated giant post-traumatic phrenic hernia in a patient with morbid obesity and diabetes mellitus type II]

Surgical treatment of post-traumatic right-sided phrenic hernia is associated with certain technical difficulties due to topographic and anatomical features. Morbid obesity combined with diabetes mellitus type II is one of the main factors complicating any surgical thoracic or abdominal surgery and further rehabilitation. We report simultaneous surgery for complicated post-traumatic right-sided phrenic hernia in a patient with morbid obesity and diabetes mellitus type II. Surgical correction of giant phrenic hernia facilitated further effective treatment of morbid obesity and concomitant diabetes mellitus type II.

The safety of additional procedures at the time of revisional bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The third most common bariatric operation is revisions of previous bariatric surgeries. Patients may require revisional bariatric surgery for inadequate weight loss or complications. Patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery may also have other conditions that require surgery. This study evaluates the 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery and additional procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the 2005-2017 ACS NSQIP database identified 7249 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery with 3115 (48%) occurring with additional procedures. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was completed for 13 patient demographics and comorbidities. Postoperative variables were then analyzed as available in the NSQIP database. Subgroup analyses were completed for those undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair and abdominal wall hernia repair at the time of revisional bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

The most common bariatric surgery that was converted or revised was the AGB (57%) and the most common additional procedure was paraesophageal hernia repair (n = 181, 15%). When additional procedures were completed at the time of revisional bariatric surgery, overall complications (p < 0.001), major systemic complications (p = 0.009) and mortality/major complications (p = 0.018) were all significantly increased. After matching for operative time, only postoperative sepsis remained significant with additional procedures (p = 0.042). In the subgroup analyses on paraesophageal and abdominal wall hernias there were no differences in postoperative complications after matching for operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional procedures, including paraesophageal and abdominal wall hernia repairs at the time of revisional bariatric surgery increase postoperative complications. Operative time was longer when additional procedures were performed. Postoperative sepsis was the only complication which remained significant after propensity matching when additional procedures are completed at the time of revisional bariatric surgery.

Outcomes of Overlapping Surgery in Otolaryngology

Objective

To compare outcomes in otolaryngology between overlapping and nonoverlapping surgeries.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Tertiary referral center.

Subjects and Methods

All patients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures at Stanford University Hospital between January 2009 and June 2016 were included (n = 13,479). Cases were divided into 2 cohorts: overlapping (n = 1806, 13.4%) vs nonoverlapping (n = 11,673, 86.6%). Variables reviewed were type of operation performed, multidisciplinary team involvement, complications, reoperations, readmissions, and deaths.

Results

The total complication rate over 7.5 years studied was 3.3% (n = 450). Complication rates were lower for overlapping cases (0.77%) compared to nonoverlapping cases (3.73%) with an odds ratio of 0.2014, which was statistically significant ( P < .0001). When examined by subspecialty, the complication rate for rhinology and endoscopic skull base procedures was approximately 10 times lower when overlapping (0.30%) was compared to nonoverlapping (3.15%), with an odds ratio of 0.094 ( P = .0001). There was no difference in complication rates for other surgical subspecialties. There were no deaths associated with overlapping surgery. The rate of major complications requiring reoperation was similarly lower for overlapping procedures (0.276%) compared to nonoverlapping procedures (1.35%) with an odds ratio of 0.2023 ( P = .0004). Readmission rates were lower for overlapping cases (0.49%) when compared to nonoverlapping cases (1.09%), with an odds ratio of 0.4553 ( P = .0229).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing overlapping surgery had lower overall complication rates, lower reoperation rates, lower readmission rates, and no mortalities. The institutional experience presented provides evidence that with appropriate patient and case selection, otolaryngologists may safely perform overlapping surgery without increased risk of adverse patient outcomes.

Perceptions of overlapping surgery in neurosurgery based on practice volume: A multi-institutional survey

OBJECTIVE

Overlapping surgery, accepted by many as two distinct operations occurring at the same time but without coincident critical portions, has been said to improve patient access to surgical care. With recent controversy, some are opposed to this practice due to concerns regarding its safety. In this manuscript, we sought to investigate the perceptions of overlapping surgery among neurosurgical leadership and the association of these perceptions with neurosurgical case volume.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a self-administered survey of neurosurgery department chair and residency program directors of institutions participating in the Vizient Clinical Database/Resource (CDB/RM), an administrative database of 117 United States (US) medical centers and their 300 affiliated hospitals. We queried participants regarding yearly departmental case-volume, frequency of overlapping surgery in daily practice and the degree of overlapping they find acceptable.

RESULTS

Of the 236 surveys disseminated, a total of 70 responses were received with a response rate of 29.7.%, which is comparable to previously reported response rates among neurosurgeons and other physicians. Our respondents consisted of 43 of 165 chairs (26.1.%) and 27 of 66 program directors (40.0.%) representing 64 unique hospitals/institutions out of 216 (29.6.%). Based on the responses to question involving case volume, we divided our responders into high volume hospitals (HVH) (n = 44; > 2000 cases per year) and low volume hospitals (LVH) (N = 26). More HVH were found to have frequent occurrence of overlapping surgery (50% weekly and 20.9.% daily vs LVH's 26.9.% weekly and 3.8.% daily, p = 0.003) and considered two overlapping surgeries without overlap of critical portion as acceptable (38.6.% vs 26.9.%, p = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey results showed that neurosurgical departments with high-volume practices were more likely to practice overlapping surgery on a regular basis and to view it as an acceptable practice. The association between overlapping surgery and the volume-outcome relationship should be further evaluated.

What Does it Mean for a Surgeon to “Run Two Rooms”? A Comprehensive Literature Review of Overlapping and Concurrent Surgery Policies

The aim of this study was to review and analyze all of the “concurrent surgery” (CS) and “overlapping surgery” (OS) literature with the goal of: standardizing terminology, defining discrepancies in the literature and proposing solutions for the current challenges of regulating surgery to achieve maximal safety and efficiency. The CS and OS literature has grown exponentially over the past two years. Before this, there were no significant publications addressing this topic. There is an extremely wide variance on how “running two rooms” is defined and whether it should be permitted. These differences affect our patients’ perception of this practice. The literature lacks any comprehensive review of the topic and terminology. We performed a PubMed search to identify studies that considered the issue of OS. The terms “overlapping surgery”, “concurrent surgery”, and “simultaneous surgery” (SS) were used in the query. We then analyzed the publications identified. The literature contained 18 published studies analyzing OS safety between November 2016 and June 2018. Eight were neurosurgical studies, three were orthopedic, and the remaining seven articles were in other surgical specialties. A total of 1,207,155 surgical cases (range 250–>500,000 patients) were analyzed among the 18 studies. There were 57,880 (5.04%) OS cases. The OS rates in the individual studies ranged from 1.2 to 68 per cent (Table 1). Neurosurgical studies had the highest average OS rate of 54 per cent (range 37–68%), whereas the average OS rate in orthopedic surgery was 43 per cent (range 2.7–68%). Approximately one-third of the studies were multicenter investigations (27.7%). The studies measured more than 20 distinct outcomes, but there were only five outcomes that were included in the majority of the studies: mortality rates, reoperation rates, procedure length of time, readmission rates, and hospital length of stay. The current body of literature repeatedly demonstrates that OS is a safe and effective option when undertaken by experienced surgeons who practice it frequently. For successful OS, the Mandatory Attending Portion for two surgeries must not overlap and Unnecessary Anesthesia Time must be prohibited. Hospitals and surgical specialty organizations must implement policies to assure the safe practice of OS.

Association of Overlapping Surgery With Perioperative Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Overlapping surgery, in which more than 1 procedure performed by the same primary surgeon is scheduled so the start time of one procedure overlaps with the end time of another, is of concern because of potential adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between overlapping surgery and mortality, complications, and length of surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of 66 430 operations in patients aged 18 to 90 years undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty; spine surgery; coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery; and craniotomy at 8 centers between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2018. Patients were followed up until discharge.

EXPOSURES

Overlapping surgery (≥2 operations performed by the same surgeon in which ≥1 hour of 1 case, or the entire case for those <1 hour, occurs when another procedure is being performed).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality or complications (major: thromboembolic event, pneumonia, sepsis, stroke, or myocardial infarction; minor: urinary tract or surgical site infection) and surgery duration.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 66 430 operations (mean patient age, 59 [SD, 15] years; 31 915 women [48%]), of which 8224 (12%) were overlapping. After adjusting for confounders, overlapping surgery was not associated with a significant difference in in-hospital mortality (1.9% overlapping vs 1.6% nonoverlapping; difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.2% to 0.7%]; P = .21) or risk of complications (12.8% overlapping vs 11.8% nonoverlapping; difference, 0.9% [95% CI, -0.1% to 1.9%]; P = .08). Overlapping surgery was associated with increased surgery length (204 vs 173 minutes; difference, 30 minutes [95% CI, 24 to 37 minutes]; P < .001). Overlapping surgery was significantly associated with increased mortality and increased complications among patients having a high preoperative predicted risk for mortality and complications, compared with low-risk patients (mortality: 5.8% vs 4.7%; difference, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.1% to 2.2%]; P = .03; complications: 29.2% vs 27.0%; difference, 2.3% [95% CI, 0.3% to 4.3%]; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults undergoing common operations, overlapping surgery was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality or postoperative complication rates but was significantly associated with increased surgery length. Further research is needed to understand the association of overlapping surgery with these outcomes among specific patient subgroups.

Bariatric Surgery in the Elderly Patient: Safety and Short-time Outcome. A Case Match Analysis

BACKGROUND

Indications and outcomes of bariatric surgery in the elderly remain controversial. We aimed to evaluate and compare safety and early outcomes of bariatric procedures in this age group.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective case-control study of Mayo Clinic bariatric surgery patients from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018. Data collection included surgery type, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)). Patients aged 65 years old or older were matched with controls younger than 65 years by body mass index (BMI). We assessed length of stay (LOS), perioperative and early postoperative outcomes, short-term weight loss, and complications.

RESULTS

We included 150 bariatric patients, with a case-to-control ratio of 1:2. After laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, no significant difference was found in LOS between groups (2.4 vs 2.6 days; P = 0.52), 1-month BMI difference (3.35 vs 3.88; P = 0.17), mean nadir excess BMI loss (%EBL) (22.14 vs 23.2; P = 0.75), or complication rate (0% vs 3.3%; P > 0.99). Similarly, the laparoscopic or robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) cohort showed no difference in LOS (2.65 vs 2.54 days; P = 0.68), 1-month BMI difference (4.72 vs 4.53; P = 0.68), %EBL (31.7 vs 26.6; P = 0.13), or complication rate (11.7% vs 5.71%; P = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Although the sample size is small to draw definitive conclusions, bariatric surgery in patients 65 years or older seems to be safe, with similar outcomes and complication rates as in younger patients, regardless of procedure performed.