A Prospective Evaluation of the Utility of a Hybrid Operating Suite for Severely Injured Patients: Overstated or Underutilized?

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the utility, clinical impact, and work flow of a new trauma hybrid operating theater. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The potential utility and clinical benefit of hybrid operating theaters are increasingly postulated. Unfortunately, the clinical outcomes and efficiencies of these environments remain unclear. METHODS: All severely injured patients who were transferred to the hybrid suite for emergent intervention between 2013 and 2017 were compared to consecutive prehybrid patients. Standard statistical methodology was employed (P < 0.05 = significant). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients with severe injuries (mean ISS = 23; hemodynamic instability = 70%; hospital/ICU stay = 12 d; mortality = 14%) were transferred urgently to the hybrid suite. Most were young (38 yrs) males (84%) with blunt injuries (51%). Combined hybrid trauma procedures occurred in 18% of cases (surgery (82%) and angiography (11%) alone). Procedures within the hybrid suite included: laparotomy (57%), extremity (14%), thoracotomy/sternotomy (12%), angioembolization of the spleen/pelvis/liver/other (9%), neck (9%), craniotomy (4%), and aortic endostenting (6%). Compared with historical controls, use of the hybrid suite resulted in shorter arrival to intervention and total procedure times (P < 0.05). A clear benefit for survival was evident (42% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of a hybrid environment for severely injured patients reduces time to intervention, total procedural duration, blood product transfusion and salvages a small subset of patients who would not otherwise survive. The cost associated with a hybrid suite remains prohibitive for many centers.