Inpatient versus Outpatient Alveolar Bone Grafting: A Nationwide Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative outcomes and costs between inpatient and outpatient ABG in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Multi-institutional/national. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent ABG (n = 6649) were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database from 2012-2021. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts were matched using coarsened exact matching. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Thirty-day readmission, reoperation, and complications. A modified Markov model was developed to estimate the cost difference between cohorts. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: After matching, 3718 patients were included, of which 1859 patients were in each hospital-setting cohort. The inpatient cohort had significantly higher rates of reoperations (0.6% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.032) and surgical site infections (0.8% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.018). The total cost of outpatient ABG was estimated to be $10,824 vs. $20,955 for inpatient ABG, resulting in $10,131 cost savings per patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that all 10,000 simulations resulted in consistent cost savings for the outpatient cohort that ranged from $8000 to $24,000. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient ABG has become increasingly more popular over the past ten years, with a majority of cases being performed in the ambulatory setting. If deemed safe for the individual patient, outpatient ABG may confer a lower risk of nosocomial complications and offer significant cost savings to the healthcare economy.

A Systematic Review of Simulation in Burn Care: Education, Assessment, and Management.

Assessment and management of burns require nuanced, timely interventions in high-stake settings, creating challenges for trainees. Simulation-based education has become increasingly popular in surgical and nonsurgical subspecialties to supplement training without compromising patient safety. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on existing burn management-related simulations. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles describing burn-specific surgical and nonsurgical simulation models were included. The model type, study description, simulated skills, assessment methods, fidelity, cost, and outcomes were collected. Of 3,472 articles, 31 met inclusion criteria. The majority of simulations were high-fidelity (n=17, 54.8%). Most were immersive (n=17, 54.8%) and used synthetic benchtop models (n=13, 41.9%), whereas none were augmented/virtual reality. Simulations of acute and early surgical intervention techniques (n=16, 51.6%) and burn wound assessments (n=15, 48.4%) were the most common, whereas burn reconstruction was the least common (n=3, 9.7%). Technical skills were taught more often (n=29, 93.5%) than non-technical skills (n=15, 48.4%). Subjective assessments (n=18, 58.1%) were used more often than objective assessments (n=23, 74.2%). Of the studies that reported costs, 91.7% (n=11) reported low costs. This review identified the need to expand burn simulator options, especially for burn reconstruction, and highlighted the paucity of animal, cadavers, and augmented/virtual reality models. Developing validated, accessible burn simulations to supplement training may improve education, patient safety, and outcomes.