Needs assessment for patient-centered education and outcome metrics in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: From clinical experience, many patients undergoing robotic assisted surgery (RAS) have a poor understanding of the technology. To ensure informed consent and appropriate expectations, a needs assessment for patient-centered education and outcome metrics in RAS is warranted. Our goal was to perform an assessment of patient understanding, comfort with robotic technology, and ability to obtain critical information from their surgeon when undergoing RAS. METHODS: Twenty patients planned for RAS by three surgeons were asked to complete a six-item Likert agreement scale survey prior to signing informed consent. The study coordinator administered surveys, while the surgeon left the room. Indicator statements were crafted to reduce bias and two-way evaluated for consistency. The surgeons were additionally asked their perception of each patient's understanding and comfort with RAS. Frequency statistics and tendencies were analyzed. RESULTS: Surgeons strongly agreed all patients appropriately understood how RAS functioned and would ask more questions before signing consent, if needed. Patients were predominately not familiar with RAS and felt surgeons did not explain how RAS worked. There was wide variability on if patients understood how RAS worked for their treatment. Overall, patients were not completely comfortable with RAS for their care, did not understand the risks of RAS compared to other approaches, and did not feel their surgeon understood what they needed to know to make informed decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This needs assessment demonstrated critical gaps in patient knowledge about RAS, surgeon communication skills, and the ability of surgeons to know what was important from the patient perspective. The development of RAS patient-centered education and outcome metrics could help address these gaps.

Routine chest X-rays after pigtail chest tube removal rarely change management in children.

BACKGROUND: The need for chest X-rays (CXR) following large-bore chest tube removal has been questioned; however, the utility of CXRs following removal of small-bore pigtail chest tubes is unknown. We hypothesized that CXRs obtained following removal of pigtail chest tubes would not change management. METHODS: Patients < 18 years old with pigtail chest tubes placed 2014-2019 at a tertiary children's hospital were reviewed. Exclusion criteria were age < 1 month, death or transfer with a chest tube in place, or pigtail chest tube replacement by large-bore chest tube. The primary outcome was chest tube reinsertion. RESULTS: 111 patients underwent 123 pigtail chest tube insertions; 12 patients had bilateral chest tubes. The median age was 5.8 years old. Indications were pneumothorax (n = 53), pleural effusion (n = 54), chylothorax (n = 6), empyema (n = 5), and hemothorax (n = 3). Post-pull CXRs were obtained in 121/123 cases (98.4%). The two children without post-pull CXRs did not require chest tube reinsertion. Two patients required chest tube reinsertion (1.6%), both for re-accumulation of their chylothorax. CONCLUSIONS: Post-pull chest X-rays are done nearly universally following pigtail chest tube removal but rarely change management. Providers should obtain post-pull imaging based on symptoms and underlying diagnosis, with higher suspicion for recurrence in children with chylothorax.