Comparative Effectiveness of Retromuscular and Intraperitoneal Repair: What Is the Value of Posterior Sheath Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesize that posterior sheath reconstruction to achieve retromuscular mesh placement provides outcomes comparable to traditional retromuscular mesh placement and superior to intraperitoneal repair. METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups: (1) retromuscular mesh placement with repaired posterior sheath defects, (2) retromuscular repair with an intact posterior sheath, and (3) intraperitoneal repair. Primary outcomes included recurrence, surgical-site occurrences, and cost. RESULTS: Overall, 179 patients were included. Posterior sheath defects were repaired primarily with absorbable suture or biological mesh. Recurrence rates differed significantly between standard retromuscular repair and intraperitoneal repair groups (p < 0.009), trended toward significance between repaired posterior sheath and intraperitoneal repair groups (p < 0.058), and showed no difference between repaired posterior sheath and standard retromuscular repair (p < 0.608). Retromuscular repair was clinically protective and cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of posterior sheath reconstruction suggests outcomes comparable to traditional retromuscular repair and a trend toward superiority compared with intraperitoneal repair. Achieving retromuscular closure appears to demonstrate clinical and cost efficacy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Cleft-Palate Repair: Does Hospital Case-Volume Impact Outcomes or Cost?

BACKGROUND: How hospital case-volume affects operative outcomes and cost continues to grow in importance. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of case volume with operative outcomes and cost in cleft palate repair. METHODS: Subjects undergoing cleft palate repair between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the Pediatric Health Information System. Outcomes were compared between two groups: those undergoing treatment at a high-volume institution, and those undergoing treatment at a low-volume institution. Primary outcomes were as follows: any complication, prolonged length of stay, and increased total cost. RESULTS: Over 20,000 patients (n = 20,320) from 49 institutions met inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis, those subjects who underwent treatment at a high-volume institution had a lower rate of overall complications (3.4 percent versus 5.1 percent; p < 0.001), and lower rates of prolonged length of stay (4.5 percent versus 5.8 percent; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (48.6 percent versus 50.9 percent; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects treated in high-volume centers were less likely to experience any complication (OR, 0.678; p < 0.001) and were less likely to have an extended length of stay (OR, 0.82; p = 0.005). Subjects undergoing palate repair at a high-volume institution were no less likely to incur increased total cost (OR, 1.01; p = 0.805). CONCLUSION: In institutions performing a high volume of cleft palate repairs, subjects had significantly decreased odds of experiencing a complication or prolonged length of stay. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Craniosynostosis Surgery: Does Hospital Case Volume Impact Outcomes or Cost?

BACKGROUND: The relationships between hospital/surgeon characteristics and operative outcomes and cost are being scrutinized increasingly. In patients with craniosynostosis specifically, the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes has yet to be characterized. METHODS: Subjects undergoing craniosynostosis surgery between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the Pediatric Health Information System. Outcomes were compared between two exposure groups, those undergoing treatment at a high-volume institution (>40 cases per year), and those undergoing treatment at a low-volume institution (40 cases per year). Primary outcomes were any complication, prolonged length of stay, and increased total cost. RESULTS: Over 13,000 patients (n = 13,112) from 49 institutions met inclusion criteria. In multivariate regression analyses, subjects treated in high-volume centers were less likely to experience any complication (OR, 0.764; p < 0.001), were less likely to have an extended length of stay (OR, 0.624; p < 0.001), and were less likely to have increased total cost (OR, 0.596; p < 0.001). Subjects undergoing strip craniectomy in high-volume centers were also less likely to have any complication (OR, 0.708; p = 0.018) or increased total cost (OR, 0.51; p < 0.001). Subjects undergoing midvault reconstruction in high-volume centers were less likely to experience any complications (OR, 0.696; p = 0.002), have an extended length of stay (OR, 0.542; p < 0.001), or have increased total cost (OR, 0.495; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In hospitals performing a high volume of craniosynostosis surgery, subjects had significantly decreased odds of experiencing a complication, prolonged length of stay, or increased total cost compared with those undergoing treatment in low-volume institutions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

The Whitaker Classification of Craniosynostosis Outcomes: An Assessment of Interrater Reliability.

BACKGROUND: The Whitaker classification is a simple and widely used system for describing aesthetic outcomes after craniosynostosis surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate its interrater reliability for patients who have undergone fronto-orbital surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with craniosynostosis who underwent surgical intervention at a tertiary referral center was conducted. Inclusion criteria were as follows: single-suture craniosynostosis, surgical intervention before age 2 years, and photographs taken before revisions between 5 and 20 years of age. Thirteen craniofacial surgeons independently reviewed the subjects' photographs and assigned Whitaker classifications. Interrater reliability was assessed with the Cohen kappa statistic. RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects were included. Average ages at surgery and at the time of postoperative photography were 0.8 year and 12.8 years, respectively. The κ value for all 13 raters was 0.1567 (p < 0.0001), indicating "slight agreement." Pairwise comparisons demonstrated κ values ranging from 0.0384 to 0.5492. The average rating for the set of 29 photographs differed significantly across the 13 raters (p = 0.0020) and ranged from 1.79 ± 0.68 to 2.79 ± 0.77. Finally, we found that average Whitaker classification did not differ significantly between subjects who subsequently underwent cranioplasty and/or fronto-orbital advancement and those who did not (subsequent procedures, 2.45 ± 0.55; no subsequent procedures, 1.88 ± 0.78; p = 0.1087). CONCLUSIONS: The Whitaker classification exhibits low interrater reliability and does not predict future treatment. It may benefit craniofacial surgeons to create new evaluation tools with greater precision, to improve the quality of patient care and craniofacial outcomes research.

Assessing Risk Factors for Hospital-Based, Acute Care Within Thirty Days of Craniosynostosis Surgery Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

While in-hospital outcomes and long-term results of craniosynostosis surgery have been described, no large studies have reported on postoperative readmission and emergency department (ED) visits. The authors conducted this study to describe the incidence, associated diagnoses, and risk factors for these encounters within 30 days of craniosynostosis surgery.Using 4 state-level databases, the authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients <3 years of age who underwent surgery for craniosynostosis. The primary outcome was any hospital based, acute care (HBAC; ED visit or hospital readmission) within 30 days of discharge. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with this outcome.The final sample included 1120 patients. On average, patients were ages 4.6 months with the majority being male (67.3%) and having Medicaid (52%) or private (48.0%) insurance. Ninety-nine patients (8.8%) had at least 1 HBAC encounter within 30 days and 13 patients (1.2%) had 2 or more. The majority of encounters were managed in the ED without hospital admission (56.6%). In univariate analysis, age, race, insurance status, and initial length of stay significantly differed between the HBAC and non-HBAC groups. In multivariate analysis, only African-American race (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.98 [1.49-23.94]) and Hispanic ethnicity (AOR = 5.31 [1.88-14.97]) were associated with more frequent HBAC encounters.Nearly 10% of patients with craniosynostosis require HBAC postoperatively with ED visits accounting for the majority of these encounters. Race is independently associated with HBAC, the cause of which is unknown and will be the focus of future research.

An Assessment of 30-Day Complications in Primary Cleft Palate Repair: A Review of the 2012 ACS NSQIP Pediatric.

OBJECTIVE: This study uses the American College of Surgeons Pediatric National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP Pediatric), a multicenter database, to identify risk factors for complications after cleft palate repair. DESIGN: Patients undergoing Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 42200 and 42205 were extracted from the 2012 ACS NSQIP Pediatric. Patients older than 36 months or those who had undergone an additional surgery that altered the risk were excluded. Outcome variables were combined to create a complication variable. Fisher's exact, Pearson chi-square, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria were met by 751 patients. Of these, 192 (25.6%) had unilateral clefts, 146 (19.4%) bilateral, and 413 (55.0%) were unspecified. The average age at time of surgery for those without and with complications was 421.1 ± 184.8 and 433.6 ± 168.0 days, respectively (P = .76). Of the 21 (2.8%) patients with complications, respiratory complications were the most common. Risk factors associated with complications included American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of 3 (P = .003), nutritional support (P = .013), esophageal/gastric/intestinal disease (P = .016), oxygen support (P = .003), structural pulmonary/airway abnormality (P = .011), and impaired cognitive status (P = .009). Patients undergoing concurrent laryngoscopy (P = .048) or other surgeries (P = .047) were also found to be associated with increased complications. The 30-day fistula rate was 0.5%, and the readmission rate was 1.9%. CONCLUSION: Perioperative complications for primary palatoplasty were 2.8% according to the ACS NSQIP Pediatric. Preoperative patient-related factors as well as concurrent surgeries may affect 30-day complication rates. These results help target those at greater risk for complications and allow for appropriate interventions to mitigate risks.

An Assessment of 30-Day Complications in Primary Cleft Lip Repair: A Review of the 2012 ACS NSQIP Pediatric.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with complications and readmissions following cleft lip repair using the multicenter American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Pediatric. DESIGN: Patients undergoing CPT codes 40700, 40701, and 40702 were extracted from the ACS NSQIP Pediatric. Fisher exact, χ(2), and rank-sum tests were used to evaluate risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 525 patients included, 4.2% had complications, with respiratory complications being the most common. Risk factors included congenital malformations (P = .001), ventilator dependence (P = .002), oxygen support (P = .016), tracheostomy (P = .005), esophageal/gastric/intestinal disease (P = .007), impaired cognitive status (P = .034), acquired central nervous system abnormality (P = .040), nutritional support (P = .001), major and severe cardiac risk factors (P = .011 and P = .005), and an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 (P = .002). In addition, complications were associated with undergoing a one-stage bilateral repair (P = .045) or concomitant ear, nose, and throat procedure (P = .045). The readmission rates for ambulatory patients and inpatients were 2.6% and 4.9% (P = .556), with an overall readmission rate of 4.6%. Ambulatory patients were older (P = .005) and had shorter operative times (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative complications are low following cleft lip repair, with respiratory complications being the most common. Readmission rates of 4.6% are higher than expected, and insight into predictors of complications will allow surgeons to identify patients who could benefit from additional resources.

The cost of major complications associated with immediate two-stage expander/implant-based breast reconstruction.

Previous studies assessing the costs associated with two stage expander/implant (E/I) reconstruction rarely include the cost of complications. The purpose of this study is to analyze the complication costs associated with a single institution experience with immediate E/I reconstruction. All immediate two stage E/I reconstructions at a single institution between March 2005-April 2011 were reviewed. The reconstruction database was retrospectively queried for reconstructive details, complications, and cost. Statistical analyses were performed to determine which complications significantly increased reconstructive cost. 327 E/I reconstructions in 195 patients were analyzed. The major complications analyzed included haematoma requiring evacuation (1.2% of reconstructions), major infection (6.1% of reconstructions), E/I exposure (3.1% of reconstructions), and E/I rupture (2.4% of reconstructions); 2.1% of patients experienced reconstructive failure. The mean reconstructive cost was $22,323 ± 9,072. Costs were increased $12,554 by E/I infection (p < 0.001) and $17,153 by prosthetic exposure (p < 0.001). Pre- or postoperative radiation or chemotherapy did not significantly affect reconstructive costs. Unplanned readmissions or unplanned visits to the operative room significantly increased total reconstructive costs (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, prosthetic infection and prosthetic exposure significantly increased costs associated with immediate two-stage E/I reconstruction, as did unplanned readmissions and unplanned visits to the operative room. In the current state of the US healthcare system, it is becoming more important for surgeons to be conscious of the economic burden associated with poor reconstructive outcomes.

Outcomes and Cost Analysis in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Simultaneous Free Flap Breast Reconstruction and Gynecologic Procedures.

BACKGROUND: For patients with BRCA mutations, a simultaneous procedure that combines risk-reducing operation of the ovaries with mastectomy and breast reconstruction is an attractive option. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes and associated cost of performing simultaneous mastectomy, free flap breast reconstruction (FFR), and gynecologic procedure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent bilateral FFR from 2005 to 2012. Four hundred twenty-two patients were identified who underwent bilateral breast reconstruction without a simultaneous gynecologic procedure. Forty-two patients were identified who underwent simultaneous FFR and gynecologic procedure. Clinical outcomes, medical and surgical complications, and hospital costs were analyzed and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 928 free flaps were performed on 464 patients. Forty-two patients had a simultaneous gynecologic procedure at the time of breast reconstruction. Twenty-three (54.8%) patients within the study group underwent simultaneous bilateral salpingo oophorectomy (BSO), whereas the other 19 (45.2%) underwent both total abdominal hysterectomy and BSO. Eighty-four free flaps were performed in this cohort (n = 48 muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous, n = 28 deep inferior epigastric perforator, n = 4 superficial inferior epigastric perforator, n = 4 transverse upper gracilis). Mean operative time was 573 minutes. Mean hospitalization was 5.3 days. Postoperatively, 4 patients experienced an anastomotic thrombosis; 2 patients had an arterial thrombosis and 2 patients had a venous thrombosis. There were 2 flap failures, 2 patients with mastectomy skin flap necrosis, 11 patients who developed breast wound healing complications, and 6 patients who developed abdominal wound healing complications. Surgical and medical complication rates did not differ significantly between those who had simultaneous procedures, and those who did not. There was a statistically significant difference in the average total cost when comparing the group of patients receiving prophylactic mastectomy/FFR/total abdominal hysterectomy and/or BSO versus the patients who did not have combined gynecologic procedures at the time of reconstruction ($22,994.52 vs $21,029.23, P = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: For the high-risk breast cancer patient, a combined mastectomy, free flap reconstruction, and gynecologic procedure represents an attractive and safe option.

Analysis of perioperative factors associated with increased cost following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR).

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernias are a common, challenging, and expensive problem for both the general and reconstructive surgeons; therefore, the aim of this study is to critically assess perioperative factors related to cost in abdominal wall reconstructions (AWR). METHODS: A retrospective review of AWR patients from 2007 and 2012 was performed. Analysis of perioperative factors associated with total cost of reconstruction was performed. Linear regression analyses were used to assess independent predictors of total cost. RESULTS: 134 consecutive AWR performed by a single surgeon over a 5-year period at an academic teaching center were included. The average total cost of AWR was $61,251 ± 55,624. Linear regression analysis demonstrated that diabetes (P = 0.026), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = 0.002), preoperative anemia (P = 0.001), and hernias derived from trauma (P = 0.015) were independently associated with added cost in AWR when controlling for confounding variables. In addition, patients requiring intra-abdominal procedures (P = 0.012) and those receiving an AWR using Acellular Dermal Matrix (P = 0.015) accrued significantly greater cost. Interestingly, preoperative placement of an epidural (P = 0.011) was independently associated with significant cost savings and reduced medical morbidity. Major surgical complications (P < 0.001) and length of stay (P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased cost following AWR. CONCLUSION: We present a critical assessment of cost in AWR at a major academic teaching hospital and quantify the impact of reconstruction in the setting of medical morbidities and reconstructive complexities. The data from this study can be used to adjust reimbursement schemes and to critically assess the cost-benefit of performing AWR.

Propensity-matched, longitudinal outcomes analysis of complications and cost: comparing abdominal free flaps and implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Choosing a breast reconstructive modality after mastectomy is an important step in the reconstructive process. The authors hypothesized that autologous tissue is associated with a greater success rate and cost efficacy over time, relative to implant reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing free tissue (FF) transfer and expander implant (E/I) reconstruction between 2005 and 2011. Variables evaluated included comorbidities, surgical timing, complications, overall outcomes, unplanned reoperations, and costs. A propensity-matching technique was used to account for the nonrandomized selection of modality. RESULTS: A total of 310 propensity-matched patients underwent 499 reconstructions. No statistically significant differences in preoperative variables were noted between propensity-matched cohorts. Operative characteristics were similar between FF and E/I reconstructions. The E/I reconstruction was associated with a significantly higher rate of reconstructive failure (5.6% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001). Expander implant reconstructions were associated with higher rates of seroma (p = 0.009) and lower rates of medical complications (p = 0.02), but overall significantly higher rates of unplanned operations (15.5% vs 5.8%, p = 0.002). The total cost of reconstruction did not differ significantly between groups ($23,120.49 ± $6,969.56 vs $22,739.91 ± $9,727.79, p = 0.060), but E/I reconstruction was associated with higher total cost for secondary procedures ($10,157.89 ± $8,741.77 vs $3,200.71 ± $4,780.64, p < 0.0001) and a higher cost of unplanned revisions over time (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our matched outcomes analysis does demonstrate a higher overall, 2-year success rate using FF reconstruction and a significantly lower rate of unplanned surgical revisions and cost. Although autologous reconstruction is not ideal for every patient, these findings can be used to enhance preoperative discussions when choosing a reconstructive modality.

The use of epidurals in abdominal wall reconstruction: an analysis of outcomes and cost.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernias are a common, challenging, and expensive problem for general and reconstructive surgeons. The authors assessed the impact of epidurals on morbidity following abdominal wall reconstruction for hernia. METHODS: A retrospective review of abdominal wall reconstruction patients operated on between 2007 and 2012 was performed with a specific focus on the use of epidurals. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess independent predictors of morbidity. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: The study included 134 consecutive reconstructions performed by a single surgeon over a 5-year period at an academic teaching center. Patient groups were similar in terms of demographics, preoperative characteristics, hernia grade, and intraoperative characteristics. Epidural use was associated with a lower incidence of major surgical complications (19.7 percent versus 36.1 percent; p = 0.04) and medical complications (26.8 percent versus 54.1 percent; p = 0.001). A significant and independent reduction in medical morbidity (OR, 0.09; p ≤ 0.001) and unplanned reoperations (OR, 0.23; p = 0.052), was found with patients receiving epidurals. Furthermore, a notable trend toward reduced major surgical complications (OR, 0.45; p = 0.141) and cost savings (-$22,184; p = 0.01) was found in patients who received epidurals. Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant reductions in major surgical morbidity in reconstruction either with (p = 0.13) or without (p = 0.07) concurrent intra abdominal procedures when epidurals were not or were used, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural use may be associated with reduced morbidity and cost savings in abdominal wall reconstruction. This effect appears to be related to reduced medical morbidity and shortened length of stay in patients undergoing more complex, concurrent intraabdominal hernia procedures. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Analysis of risk factors, morbidity, and cost associated with respiratory complications following abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia remains a continued and expensive problem for general and reconstructive surgeons, alike. The aim of this study was to assess perioperative factors and cost associated with postoperative respiratory morbidity in abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of abdominal wall reconstruction patients operated on between 2007 and 2012 was performed. Analysis of perioperative factors associated with postoperative respiratory morbidity was performed using hospital-defined International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess independent predictors of postoperative respiratory morbidity, and linear regression was used to determine the financial impact. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four consecutive abdominal wall reconstructions performed by a single surgeon over a 5-year period were included. Respiratory complications occurred in 15.7 percent of patients (n = 21); 5.2 percent required reintubation (n = 7) and 5.2 percent failed to wean from ventilatory support postoperatively (n = 7). Patients experiencing respiratory morbidity stayed on average 16.2 days longer (p < 0.0001) and represented the only three patients in the study experiencing mortality (p = 0.003). Regression analysis demonstrated that intraoperative blood transfusions (p = 0.008), highest peak intraoperative airway pressure (p = 0.017), fascial closure (p = 0.013), and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (p = 0.019) were all associated with postoperative respiratory morbidity. Linear regression analysis demonstrated that respiratory complications added a cost of $60,933 per patient (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative respiratory morbidity following abdominal wall reconstruction is a common occurrence linked to identifiable perioperative risk factors and associated with significant mortality and a tremendous cost burden. These findings underscore the importance of preoperative risk stratification and patient selection to optimize outcome and contain cost.