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.

Impact of the Percentage of Overlapping Surgery on Patient Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 87,000 Surgical Cases

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of percentage of surgical overlap with patient outcomes to determine if a detrimental level of overlap exists.

BACKGROUND

Overlapping surgery is defined as 1 attending physician supervising 2 or more operative cases simultaneously, without the critical portions of the cases occurring concurrently. To date, no study has examined the relationship of percent overlap, or the percentage of 1 case that is spent overlapping with another, to outcomes, efficiency, safety, and complications.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a large tertiary referral center. The primary outcomes of interest included operative duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and patient safety indicators (PSIs). The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the outcomes of interest. P values of ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 87,426 cases were included in this study. There were 62,332 cases without overlap (Group 0), 10,514 cases with 1% to 25% overlap (Group 1), 5303 cases with 26% to 50% overlap (Group 2), 4296 cases with 51% to 75% overlap (Group 3), and 4981 cases with >75% overlap (Group 4). In-hospital mortality decreased as overlap increased ( Ptrend <0.0001). Operative time increased with increasing overlap ( Ptrend <0.0001) while readmission rates showed no statistical significance between groups ( Ptrend =0.5078). Rates of PSIs were lower for Groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.69%, 2.01%, and 2.08%) when compared to Group 0 (2.24%). Group 4 had the highest rate of PSIs at 2.35% ( P =0.0086).

CONCLUSION

Overlapping surgery was shown to have reduced in-hospital mortality and similar PSI and readmission rates when compared to nonoverlapping cases. Operative time was shown to increase in overlapping surgeries when compared to nonoverlapping surgeries. The results from this study indicate that the percentage of surgical overlap does not detrimentally affect most patient outcomes, especially with overlap of <75%.

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.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes and Safety between Overlapping and Nonoverlapping Surgeries in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

PURPOSE

Overlapping surgery or double-booking is a vital yet disputed issue in healthcare field. However, safety of the overlapping surgery during laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and safety of overlapping surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE for gallbladder and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed 2736 laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE surgeries during 2013-2020. One thousand, two hundred eighty patients underwent LCBDE through cystic duct, including 867 receiving overlapping procedures, while 1456 underwent LCBDE through laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC), including 981 who underwent overlapping procedures. Data regarding patient sex, age, body mass index, the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, comorbidities, preoperative liver function test, previous upper abdominal surgery, presence of acute cholecystitis, cholangitis, pancreatitis, or jaundice, common bile duct (CBD) or CBDS diameter, CBDS number, LCBDE operation time, procedure duration, length of stay, stone clearance, CBD closure methods, conversion to open surgery, and complications were collected.

RESULTS

Differences in demographics and clinical variables between both groups were not significant, and the unadjusted outcomes were comparable, except for the total procedure duration (transcystic: p < .001; LC: p < .001). After adjusting for demographics and clinical variables, overlapping surgery showed an extended total surgical procedure duration (transcystic: standardized coefficient = 0.084, p = .004; LC: standardized coefficient = 0.072, p = .015). Other effects of overlapping surgery were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Overlapping surgery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE was safe at our institution. However, the association of patient outcomes with overlapping laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE should be further investigated.

Overlapping Urological Surgeries at a Tertiary Academic Center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the practice of procedure-time overlapping surgery (OS) is associated with inferior outcomes compared to nonoverlapping surgery (NOS) in urology, to address the paucity of data surrounding urologic surgeries to support or refute this practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all urological surgeries at a single tertiary-level academic center, Emory University Hospital, from July 2016 to July 2018. Patients who received OS were matched 1:2 to patients who had NOS. The primary outcomes were perioperative and postoperative complications and mortality.

RESULTS

We reviewed 8535 urological surgeries. In-room time overlap was seen in 50.5% of cases and procedure-time overlap in 7.4%. Eleven out of the 13 attending urologists performed OS. The average time in the operating room was greater for OS by an average of 14 minutes. The average operative time was greater for OS than NOS by 11 minutes, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference between the cohorts for rate of blood transfusions, ICU stay, need for postoperative invasive procedures, length of postoperative hospital stay, discharge location, Emergency Room visits, hospital readmission rate, 30 and 90-day rates of postoperative complications, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Procedure-time overlapping surgeries constituted a minority of urological cases. OS were associated with greater in-room time. We found no increased risk of perioperative or postoperative adverse outcomes in OS compared to matched NOS.