Safety and effectiveness of transarterial embolization for splenic artery hemorrhage in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy.

Background Perigastric lymph nodes are dissected during gastrectomy, potentially resulting in life-threatening postoperative bleeding. Purpose To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transarterial embolization (TAE) for bleeding from the splenic artery in patients who underwent gastrectomy. Material and Methods Between January 2004 and December 2016, 14,523 patients underwent gastrectomy at our institution, and ten patients (nine men; mean age = 64.7 years; age range = 51-80 years) underwent TAE for postoperative bleeding from the splenic artery. The location of bleeding was classified as either: (i) the main splenic artery (MSA) or (ii) the parenchymal splenic artery (PSA). The clinical outcomes of TAE were explored. Results Bleeding occurred at a median of 13.5 days (range = 4-34 days) after gastrectomy. The onset of bleeding was late in all patients and clinically manifested as abdominal bleeding in seven patients and luminal bleeding in three patients. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 70%, respectively. The three major complications occurred only in patients with MSA bleeding, resulting in two 30-day mortality cases and one splenic abscess with fistula formation to the jejunum. The causes of death were infarctions in the spleen and/or remnant stomach and sepsis. Conclusion TAE seems to be effective in stabilizing patients with bleeding from the splenic artery. Moreover, TAE with curative intent may be performed for bleeding from the PSA; however, further resection of the remnant stomach and/or spleen seems to be required to avoid sepsis and mortality in case of bleeding from the MSA.

Imaging gently? Higher rates of computed tomography imaging for pediatric appendicitis in non-children's hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Growing concerns regarding radiation exposure in children have led to recommendations to minimize computed tomography imaging for appendicitis. We hypothesized that within a metropolitan hospital system (1 children's hospital and 8 non-children's hospitals), use of preoperative computed tomography is much greater in non-children's hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients <18 years of age undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis from April 2012 to April 2015. Patient demographics, location, and imaging modality (computed tomography and ultrasonography) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1,448 pediatric patients were identified (children's hospital = 215, 15%; non-children's hospitals = 1,233, 85%). Children's hospital patients had fewer computed tomography scans (23% vs 70%, P < .01) and more ultrasonography (75% vs 20%, P < .01). On multivariate regression, increased preoperative computed tomography use was significantly associated with non-children's hospitals (odds ratio 7.6, 95% confidence interval 5.4-10.8). At non-children's hospitals, older age (age >10: odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1) and higher patient weight (>45 kg odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.8) predicted computed tomography use. Children presenting at a children's hospital were much more likely to undergo ultrasonography (odds ratio 11.7, 95% confidence interval 8.3-16.6). CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in imaging modalities for pediatric appendicitis between a children's hospital and non-children's hospitals. Further investigation is needed to identify other factors contributing to imaging preference in the pediatric population in order to establish clinical practice guidelines to decrease or prevent unnecessary radiation exposure in children.

Meaningful use and good catches: More appropriate metrics for checklist effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of utilizing surgical safety checklists has been recently questioned. We evaluated our checklist performance after implementing a program that includes checklist-related good catches. METHODS: Multifaceted interventions aimed at the preincision checklist and 5 prospective audits were conducted from 2011-2015. We documented adherence to the checklist (verbalization of each checkpoint), fidelity (meaningful performance of each checkpoint), and good catches (events with the potential to cause the patient harm but that were prevented from occurring). Good catches were divided into quality improvement-based categories (processes, medication, safety, communication, and equipment). RESULTS: A total of 1,346 checklist performances were observed (range, 144-373/yr). Adherence to the preincision checklist improved from 30% to 95% (P < .001), while adherence to the preinduction and debriefing checklists decreased (71% to 56%, P = .002) and remained unchanged (76%), respectively. Preincision fidelity decreased from 86% to 76% (P = .012). Good catches were identified during 16% of preincision checklist performances; process issues were most common (32%) followed by issues of medication administration (30%) and safety (22%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a systematic checklist program resulted in significant and sustainable improvement in performance. Meaningful use and associated good catches may be more appropriate metric than actual patient harm for measuring checklist effectiveness. Although not previously described, checklist-related good catches represent an unknown benefit of checklists.