Preoperative Frailty and Surgical Outcomes Across Diverse Surgical Subspecialties in a Large Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is an emerging risk factor for surgical outcomes; however, its application across large populations is not well defined. We hypothesized that frailty affects postoperative outcomes in a large health care system. STUDY DESIGN: Frailty was prospectively measured in elective surgery patients (January 2016 to June 2017) in a health care system (4 hospitals/901 beds). Frailty classifications-low (0), intermediate (1 to 2), high (3 to 5)-were assigned based on the modified Hopkins score. Operations were classified as inpatient (IP) vs outpatient (OP). Outcomes measured (30-day) included major morbidity, discharge location, emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and direct-cost/patient. RESULTS: There were 14,530 elective surgery patients (68.1% outpatient, 31.9% inpatient) preoperatively assessed (cardiothoracic 4%, colorectal 4%, general 29%, oral maxillofacial 2%, otolaryngology 8%, plastic surgery 13%, podiatry 6%, surgical oncology 5%, transplant 3%, urology 24%, vascular 2%). High frailty was found in 3.4% of patients (5.3% IP, 2.5% OP). Incidence of major morbidity, readmission, and mortality correlated with frailty classification in all patients (p < 0.05). In the IP cohort, length of stay in days (low 1.6, intermediate 2.3, high 4.1, p < 0.0001) and discharge to facility increased with frailty (p < 0.05). In the OP cohort, ED visits increased with frailty (p < 0.05). Frailty was associated with increased direct-cost in the IP cohort (low, $7,045; intermediate, $7,995; high, $8,599; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty affects morbidity, mortality, and health care resource use in both IP and OP operations. Additionally, IP cost increased with frailty. The broad applicability of frailty (across surgical specialties) represents an opportunity for risk stratification and patient optimization across a large health care system.

Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the success rates, cost effectiveness, and efficiency of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteral stones. METHODS: In a retrospective manner, 220 patients who underwent treatment for proximal ureteral stones were included in the study. The patient records, radiographs, and billing statements of all patients treated for upper ureteral stones between January 1997 and June 2001 at Scott and White Memorial Hospital were reviewed. The patients were placed into two treatment groups according to the method of their stone's initial treatment. The stones were categorized as less than 1 cm and 1 cm or greater. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were in the ESWL group, 73 of whom had stones less than 1 cm, and 109 patients in the URS group, 81 of whom had stones less than 1 cm. In the URS group, 91% were successfully treated with one treatment intervention, and 55% of the ESWL group were successfully treated with their initial intervention (P <0.0001). Of the patients with URS failure, all but one was treated successfully with a second URS. Of the patients with ESWL failure, 52% were treated successfully by subsequent URS. The remaining patients with ESWL failure were treated with repeat ESWL, with a 62% success rate. The efficiency quotient for stones less than 1 cm for URS and ESWL was 0.79 and 0.51, respectively. For stones 1 cm or greater, URS had an efficiency quotient of 0.72 and ESWL of 0.46. The URS group required fewer days to be stone free (8 versus 25.5 days, P <0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the overall complication rates (P = 0.43). URS had significantly lower charges for the initial procedure (7575 dollars versus 9507 dollars, P <0.0001). The total charges were also lower for URS (9378 dollars versus 15,583, dollars P <0.0001). Complications were similar in the two groups. The URS group had two ureteral strictures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that URS is more efficient and cost-effective for stones up to and larger than 1 cm with similar complication rates compared with ESWL.