Learning curves in abdominal wall reconstruction with components separation: one step closer toward improving outcomes and reducing complications.

INTRODUCTION: Learning curves are characterized by incremental improvement of a process, through repetition and reduction in variability, but can be disrupted with the emergence of new techniques and technologies. Abdominal wall reconstruction continues to evolve, with the introduction of components separation in the 1990s and biologic mesh in the 2000s. As such, attempts at innovation may impact the success of reconstructive outcomes and yield a changing set of complications. The purpose of this project was to describe the paradigm shift that has occurred in abdominal wall reconstruction during the past 10 years, focusing on the incorporation of new materials and methods. METHODS: We reviewed 150 consecutive patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction of midline defects with components separation, from 2000 to 2010. Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for complications. Patients were stratified into the following periods: early (2000-2003), middle (2004-2006), and late (2007-2010). RESULTS: From 2000 to 2010, we performed 150 abdominal wall reconstructions with components separation [mean age, 50.2 years; body mass index (BMI), 30.4; size of defect, 357 cm; length of stay, 9.6 days; follow-up, 4.4 years]. Primary fascial closure was performed in 120 patients. Mesh was used in 114 patients in the following locations: overlay (n = 28), inlay (n = 30), underlay (n = 54), and unknown (n = 2). Complications occurred in a bimodal distribution, highest in 2001 (introduction of biologic mesh) and 2008 (conversion from underlay to overlay location). Age, sex, history of smoking, defect size, and length of stay were not associated with incidence of complications. Unadjusted risk factors for seroma (16.8%) were elevated BMI, of previous hernia repairs, use of overlay mesh, and late portion of the learning curve, with logistic regression supporting only late portion of the learning curve [odds ratio (OR), 4.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-18.6] and BMI (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29). The only unadjusted risk factor for recurrence was location of mesh. Logistic regression, comparing underlay, inlay, and overlay mesh to no mesh, revealed that the use of underlay mesh predicted recurrence (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.04-8.64). All P values were less than 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The overall learning curve for a specific procedure, such as abdominal wall reconstruction, can be quite volatile, especially as innovative techniques and new technologies are introduced and incorporated into the surgeon's practice. Our current practice includes primary repair myofascial flap of the components separation and the use of biologic mesh as an overlay graft, anchored to the external oblique. This process of outcome improvement is not gradual but is often punctuated by periods of failure and redemption.

Craniosynostosis incision: scalpel or cautery?

There is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal instrument for scalp incisions: the scalpel or electrocautery. The argument generally focuses on improved healing after an incision made with a knife and decreased bleeding when using electrocautery. This study compares the use of scalpel and electrocautery in making coronal incisions for patients undergoing surgical correction of craniosynostosis. The outcome metric used is wound healing within 6 months after surgery. All patients presenting to the University of North Carolina Children's Hospital with craniosynostosis between July 1, 2007 and January 1, 2010 requiring a coronal incision for surgical correction were prospectively enrolled. In all of these patients, half of the coronal incision was made with knife; the other half, with needle tip cautery. Side of the incision was specified at the time of surgery in the operative report. Patients were excluded from the study if the instrument for incision was not specified or if only 1 modality was used for the entire incision. Sixty-eight patients underwent cranial vault reconstruction, of which 58 met inclusion criteria. Of the 58 matched pairs, 55 were analyzed statistically. The 3 excluded cases were those who had midline complications. There were 17 wound complications (15%): 8 in the knife group, 6 in the cautery group, and 3 at midline (with indeterminate side for the problem). We found no statistically significant difference in wound healing between incisions made with a knife or with electrocautery.

Management of recurrent hernia after components separation: 10-year experience with abdominal wall reconstruction at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Separation of the components has become the standard of care for abdominal wall reconstruction, especially in the setting of infected, previously infected, or contaminated wounds. Although the safety and efficacy of this technique have been established, less is known about long-term outcomes. This article focuses on the management of recurrent hernia after components separation for abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, institutional review board-approved study of components separation for abdominal wall reconstruction at an academic medical center, over a 10-year period. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2009, we performed components separation in 136 patients (mean follow-up, 4.4 years). Twenty-six patients (19.1%) developed recurrent hernia (mean age, 49.8 years; body mass index, 30.7; previous abdominal operations, 3.5; hernia size, 342 cm; length of stay, 9.1 days). Mean time to recurrence was 319 days. Of the 16/26 patients who underwent repair of recurrence, 15 had successful repair, leaving 11/136 patients (8.1%) with persistent hernia. Of the 26 recurrences, 22 (85%) occurred within the first half of the study. Repair of recurrent hernias was accomplished by placement of additional mesh in 14/15 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent hernia after components separation may be related to procedural learning curves and can be successfully treated through repeat repair, yielding high rates of successful abdominal wall reconstruction.

Surgical Precision in Clinical Documentation Connects Patient Safety, Quality of Care, and Reimbursement.

Emphasis on quality of care has become a major focus for healthcare providers and institutions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has multiple quality-of-care performance programs and initiatives aimed at providing transparency to the public, which provide the ability to directly compare services provided by hospitals and individual physicians. These quality-of-care programs highlight the transition to pay for performance, rewarding physicians and hospitals for high quality of care. To improve the use of pay for performance and analyze quality-of-care outcome measures, the Division of Plastic Surgery at Scott & White Memorial Hospital participated in an inpatient clinical documentation accuracy project (CDAP). Performance and improvement on metrics such as case mix index, severity of illness, risk of mortality, and geometric mean length of stay were assessed after implementation. After implementation of the CDAP, the division of plastic surgery showed increases in case mix index, calculated severity of illness, and calculated risk of mortality and a decrease in length of stay. For academic plastic surgeons, quality of care demands precise documentation of each patient. The CDAP provides one avenue to hone clinical documentation and performance on quality measures.