Assessment of gastric pouch blood supply with indocyanine green fluorescence in conversional and revisional bariatric surgery: a prospective comparative study.

Our study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of indocyanine green (ICG) angiography during conversional or revisional bariatric surgery. We prospectively enrolled all patients scheduled for reoperative bariatric surgery with gastric pouch resizing and ICG assessment and we compared them with a retrospective series of similar patients who did not receive ICG. The primary outcome was the rate of intraoperative change in the surgical strategy due to the ICG test. We included 32 prospective patients receiving intraoperatively an ICG perfusion test and 48 propensity score-matched controls. The mean age was 50.7 ± 9.7 years, 67 (83.7%) patients were female, and the mean BMI was 36.8 ± 5.3 kg/m2. The patient characteristics were similar in both groups. The ICG angiography was successfully conducted in all patients, and no change of the surgical strategy was necessary. Postoperative complications were similar in both groups (6.2% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.846), as well as operative time (125 ± 43 vs. 133 ± 47 min, p = 0.454) and length of hospital stay (2.8 ± 1.0 vs. 3.3 ± 2.2 days, p = 0.213). Our study suggested that ICG fluorescence angiography might not have been useful for assessing the blood supply of the gastric pouch in patients who underwent reoperative bariatric surgery. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether the application of this technique is indicated.

The Association of "U.S. News & World Report" Hospital Rankings and Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Fusions: Do Rankings Even Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and costs for elective one- to three-level anterior cervical fusions (ACFs) performed at US News and World Report (USNWR) ranked and unranked hospitals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the USNWR rankings are advertised by media and are routinely used by patients as a guide in seeking care, evidence regarding whether these rankings are reflective of actual clinical outcome remains limited. METHODS: The 2010-2014 USNWR hospital rankings were used to identify ranked hospitals in "Neurosurgery" and "Orthopedics." The 2010-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) were used to identify patients undergoing elective ACFs at ranked and unranked hospitals. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes and costs between ranked and unranked hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 110,520 patients undergoing elective one- to three-level ACFs were included in the study, of which 10,289 (9.3%) underwent surgery in one of the 100 ranked hospitals. Following multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between ranked versus unranked hospitals with regards to wound complications (1.2% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.907), cardiac complications (12.9% vs. 11.9%; P = 0.055), pulmonary complications (3.7% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.654), urinary tract infections (7.3% vs. 5.8%; P = 0.120), sepsis (9.3% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.847), deep venous thrombosis (1.9% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.077), revision surgery (0.3% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.617), and all-cause readmissions (4.7% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.266). Ranked hospitals, as compared to unranked hospitals, had a slightly lower odds of experiencing renal complications (7.0% vs. 4.9%; P = 0.047), but had significantly higher risk-adjusted 90-day charges (+$17,053; P < 0.001) and costs (+ $1695; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher charges and costs of care at ranked hospitals, these facilities appear to have similar outcomes as compared to unranked hospitals following elective ACFs.Level of Evidence: 3.

Association of Neurosurgical Work Relative Value Units with Objective Markers of Operative Complexity.

OBJECTIVE: Relative value units (RVUs) form the backbone of health care service reimbursement calculation in the United States. However, it remains unclear how well RVUs align with objective measures of procedural complexity within neurosurgery. METHODS: The 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for neurosurgical procedures with >50 patients, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Length of stay (LOS), operative time, mortality, and readmission and reoperation rates were collected for each code and a univariate correlation analysis was performed, with significant predictors entered into a multivariate logistic regression model, which generated predicted work RVUs, which were compared with actual RVUs to identify undervalued and overvalued procedures. RESULTS: Among 64 CPT codes, LOS, operative time, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were significant independent predictors of work RVUs and together explained 76% of RVU variance in a multivariate model (R2 = 0.76). Using a difference of >1.5 standard deviations from the mean, procedures associated with greater than predicted RVU included surgery for intracranial carotid circulation aneurysms (CPTs 61697 and 61700; residual RVU = 12.94 and 15.07, respectively), and infratemporal preauricular approaches to middle cranial fossa (CPT 61590; residual RVU = 15.39). Conversely, laminectomy/foraminotomy for decompression of additional spinal cord, cauda equina, and/or nerve root segments (CPT 63048; residual RVU = -21.30), transtemporal craniotomy for cerebellopontine angle tumor resection (CPT 61526; residual RVU = -9.95), and brachial plexus neuroplasty (CPT 64713; residual RVU = -11.29) were associated with lower than predicted RVU. CONCLUSIONS: Work RVUs for neurosurgical procedures are largely predictive of objective measures of surgical complexity, with few notable exceptions.

Volume Standards for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Are Not Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Volume-outcome relationships exist for many complex surgical procedures, prompting institutions to adopt surgical volume standards for credentialing. The current Leapfrog Group Hospital volume standard for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) is 15 per year. However, this is primarily based on data from the 1990s and may not be appropriate given the dramatic decline in OAR. We sought to quantify the proportion of hospitals meeting volume standards, the difference in perioperative outcomes between low-volume and high-volume hospitals, and the potential travel burden of volume credentialing on patients. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing OAR in 2013-2014. Hospital "all-payer" annual volume was estimated based on the national proportion of patients undergoing OAR covered by Medicare in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Hospital annual OAR volume was characterized as <5/year, 5-9/year, 10-14/year, and ≥15/year (high volume). Adjusted rates of postoperative morbidity, reoperation, failure to rescue, and mortality in 2014 were compared across volume cohorts. Distance between patients' home zip code and high-volume hospitals was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 21,191 OARs were performed at 1,445 hospitals between 2013 and 2014. The average hospital OAR annual volume was 7.8 (standard deviation [SD] ± 9.3) with a median of 4.5. Among the 1,445 hospitals, only 190 (13.1%) performed ≥15 OARs per year whereas 756 hospitals (53.3%) performed <5 per year. Among patients who underwent OAR in 2014, 5,395 (53.3%) received care at a hospital that performed <15 per year. There was no difference in complication, reoperation, or failure to rescue rates between high-volume and low-volume hospitals. Mortality did not significantly differ among OAR volume cohorts. Hospitals performing <5 OARs per year had a mortality rate of 5.7% compared with 5.6% at high-volume hospitals (P = 0.817). One-quarter of patients who received care at a low-volume hospital would have had to travel more than 60 miles to reach a high-volume hospital. CONCLUSIONS: By conservative estimates, only 13% of hospitals performing OAR meet current volume standards. Triaging all patients to high-volume hospitals would require shifting over 5,000 patients annually with no associated improvement in perioperative outcomes. Implementation of the current OAR hospital volume standard may significantly burden patients and hospitals without improving surgical outcomes.

Assessment of the Reliability of the Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing as an Outcome Measure in Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia is one of the most common complications of anterior cervical spine surgery, and there is a need to establish that the means of testing for it are reliable and valid. The objective of this study was to measure observer variability of the fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) test, specifically when used for evaluation of dysphagia in patients undergoing revisionary anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Images from patients undergoing revision ACDF at a single institution were collected from May 1, 2010, through July 1, 2014. Two senior certified speech pathologists independently evaluated the swallowing function of patients preoperatively and at 2 weeks postoperatively. Their numeric evaluations of the Rosenbeck Penetration-Aspiration Scale and the Swallowing Performance Scale during the FEES were then compared for interrater reliability. RESULTS: Positive agreement between raters was 94% for the preoperative Penetration-Aspiration Scale (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ, 0.77). The postoperative Penetration-Aspiration Scale showed reliability coefficients for κ, Kendall's W, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.34 (fair agreement), 0.70 (extremely strong agreement), and 0.35 (poor agreement), respectively. The preoperative Swallowing Performance Scale showed strong agreement, with a Kendall's W coefficient of 0.68, and fair reliability, with an ICC of 0.40. The postoperative Swallowing Performance Scale indicated extremely strong agreement between raters, with a Kendall's W of 0.82, and good agreement, with an ICC of 0.53. CONCLUSIONS: The FEES test appears to be a reliable assessor of dysphagia in patients undergoing ACDF and may be a useful measure for exploring outcomes in this population.

Bundled Payment "Creep": Institutional Redesign for Primary Arthroplasty Positively Affects Revision Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is associated with increased readmissions, complications, and expense compared to primary TJA. Bundled payment methods have been used to improve value of care in primary TJA, but little is known of their impact in revision TJA patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a care redesign for a bundled payment model for primary TJA on quality metrics for revision patients, despite absence of a targeted intervention for revisions. METHODS: We compared quality metrics for all revision TJA patients including readmission rate, use of post-acute care facility after discharge, length of stay, and cost, between the year leading up to the redesign and the 2 years following its implementation. Changes in the primary TJA group over the same time period were also assessed for comparison. RESULTS: Despite a volume increase of 37% over the study period, readmissions declined from 8.9% to 5.8%. Use of post-acute care facilities decreased from 42% to 24%. Length of stay went from 4.84 to 3.92 days. Cost of the hospital episode declined by 5%. CONCLUSION: Our health system experienced a halo effect from our bundled payment-influenced care redesign, with revision TJA patients experiencing notable improvements in several quality metrics, though not as pronounced as in the primary TJA population. These changes benefitted the patients, the health system, and the payers. We attribute these positive changes to an altered institutional mindset, resulting from an invested and aligned care team, with active physician oversight over the care episode.

Single-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Infection-An Underutilized Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: The burden of revision arthroplasty surgery for infection is rising as the rate of primary arthroplasty surgery increases. Infected arthroplasty rates are now relatively low, but the sheer increase in volume is leading to considerable patient morbidity and significant increases in costs to the health care system. Single-stage revision for infection is one of the several accepted treatment options, but the indications and results are debated. This review aims to clarify the current evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed databases were reviewed for studies that looked at single- or one-stage revision knee or hip arthroplasty for infection. RESULTS: There is increasing evidence that single-stage revision for infection can control infection and with decreased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs compared with a staged approach. However, the indications are still debated. Recently, there has been a determined effort to define an infected arthroplasty in a manner that will allow for standardization of reporting in the literature. The evidence supporting single stage for knee arthroplasty is catching up with the result with hip arthroplasty. High-quality data from randomized controlled trials are now pending. CONCLUSION: After the gradual evolution of using the single-stage approach, with the widespread acceptance of this definition, we can now standardize comparisons across the world and move toward a refined definition of the ideal patient population for single-stage arthroplasty revision in both the hip and the knee population.

Intraoperative culture positive allograft bone and subsequent postoperative infections: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining intraoperative cultures of allograft bone just before use in orthopedic procedures is standard practice in many centres; however, the association between positive cultures and subsequent surgical infections is unknown. Our study had 3 goals: to determine the prevalence of positive intraoperative allograft culture and subsequent infection; to determine if, in cases of subsequent infection, organisms isolated at reoperation were the same as those cultured from the allograft at the time of the index procedure; and to assess the costs associated with performing intraoperative allograft cultures. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, we obtained data on patients receiving allograft bone between 2009 and 2012. Patients receiving allograft with positive cultures were reviewed to identify cases of significant infection. Organisms isolated at reoperation were compared with the allograft culture taken at the time of implantation, and we performed a cost assessment. RESULTS: Of the 996 allograft bone grafts used, 43 (4.3%) had positive intraoperative cultures and significant postoperative infections developed in 2, requiring reoperation. Antibiotics based on culture results were prescribed in 24% of cases. Organisms cultured at the time of reoperation differed from those isolated initially. The cost of performing 996 allograft cultures was $169 320. CONCLUSION: This series suggests that rates of positive intraoperative bone allograft culture are low, and subsequent infection is rare. In cases of postoperative infection, primary allograft culture and secondary tissue cultures isolated different organisms. Costs associated with performing cultures are high. Eliminating initial culture testing could save $42 500 per year in our health region.

CONTEXTE: L'obtention de cultures d'allogreffes osseuses peropératoires juste avant une intervention orthopédique est une pratique standard dans de nombreux centres. Or, on ignore s'il y a un lien entre des résultats de cultures positifs et les infections chirurgicales subséquentes. Notre étude avait 3 objectifs : déterminer la prévalence des cultures d'allogreffes peropératoires positives et des infections subséquentes; déterminer si, dans les cas d'infections subséquentes, les agents pathogènes isolés lors d'une réintervention étaient les mêmes que dans les spécimens prélevés sur les allogreffes au moment des interventions initiales; évaluer les coûts associés à l'obtention des cultures d'allogreffes peropératoires. MÉTHODES: Dans cette série de cas rétrospectifs, nous avons réuni des données sur des patients receveurs d'allogreffes osseuses entre 2009 et 2012. Nous avons passé en revue les cas d'allogreffes dont les résultats de culture étaient positifs pour recenser ceux qui étaient porteurs d'une infection significative. Nous avons comparé les agents pathogènes isolés lors de la réintervention à ceux de la culture de l'allogreffe effectuée lors de l'implantation, et nous avons procédé à une évaluation des coûts. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 996 allogreffes osseuses effectuées, 43 (4,3 %) avaient des résultats positifs aux cultures peropératoires; des infections postopératoires significatives se sont déclarées dans 2 de ces cas et ont nécessité une réintervention. Des antibiotiques ont été prescrits en fonction des résultats des cultures dans 24 % des cas. Les agents pathogènes isolés en culture au moment de la réintervention étaient différents de ceux qui avaient été initialement isolés. Le coût des 996 cultures d'allogreffes s'est élevé à 169 320 $. CONCLUSION: Cette série donne à penser que les taux de résultats de cultures d'allogreffes osseuses peropératoires positifs sont bas et que les infections subséquentes sont rares. Dans les cas d'infections postopératoires, les cultures des allogreffes primaires et les cultures tissulaires secondaires ont révélé la présence d'organismes pathogènes différents. Les coûts associés à la réalisation des cultures sont élevés. Éliminer les cultures initiales permettrait à notre région de santé d'économiser 42 500 $ par année.

[Quality in Revision Arthroplasty: A Comparison between Claims Data Analysis and External Quality Assurance]. / Ergebnisqualität in der Revisionsendoprothetik: Eine Analyse von Routinedaten mit dem Vergleich zur externen Qualitätssicherung.

BACKGROUND: External quality assurance for revisions of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are carried out through the AQUA institute in Germany. Data are collected by the providers and are analyzed based on predefined quality indicators from the hospital stay in which the revision was performed. The present study explores the possibility to add routine data analysis to the existing external quality assurance (EQS). Differences between methods are displayed. The study aims to quantify the benefit of an additional analysis that allows patients to be followed up beyond the hospitalization itself. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All persons insured in an AOK sickness fund formed the population for analysis. Revisions were identified using the same algorithm as the existing external quality assurance. Adverse events were defined according to the AQUA indicators for the years 2008 to 2011.The hospital stay in which the revision took place and a follow-up of 30 days were included. For re-operation and dislocation we also defined a 365 days interval for additional follow-up. The results were compared to the external quality control reports. RESULTS: Almost all indicators showed higher events in claims data analysis than in external quality control. Major differences are seen for dislocation (EQS SD: 1.87 vs. claims data [cd] SD: 2.06 %, cd+30 d: 2.91 %, cd+365 d: 7.27 %) and reoperation (hip revision: EQS SD: 5.88 % vs. claims data SD: 8.79 % cd+30 d: 9.82 %, cd+365 d: 15.0 %/knee revision: EQS SD: 3.21 % vs. claims data SD: 4.07 %, cd+30 d: 4.6 %, cd+365 d: 15.43 %). Claims data could show additional adverse events for all indicators after the initial hospital stay, rising to 77 % of all events. CONCLUSIONS: The number of adverse events differs between the existing external quality control and our claims data analysis. Claims data give the opportunity to complement existing methods of quality control though a longer follow-up, when many complications become evident.

Comparative outcomes and cost-utility after surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee--part 1: long-term change in health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is well accepted that total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) for osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with reliable and sustained improvements in postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although several studies have demonstrated comparable outcomes with THA/TKA after surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), the sustainability of the outcome after LSS surgery compared with THA/TKA remains uncertain. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study is to assess whether improvements in HRQoL after surgical management of focal lumbar spinal stenosis (FLSS) with or without spondylolisthesis are sustainable over the long term compared with that of THA/TKA for OA. STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective, longitudinal matched cohort study of prospectively collected outcomes, with a minimum of 5-year follow-up (FU). PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had primary one- to two-level spinal decompression with or without instrumented fusion for FLSS and THA/TKA for primary OA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative change from baseline to last FU in Short-Form 36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores among groups was used as the primary outcome measure. METHODS: An age, sex-matched inception cohort of primary one- to two-level spinal decompression with or without instrumented fusion for FLSS (n=99) was compared with a cohort of primary THA (n=99) and TKA (n=99) for OA and followed for a minimum of 5 years. Linear regression was used for the primary analysis. RESULTS: Mean (percent) FUs in months were 80.5+16.04 (79%), 94.6+16.62 (92%), and 80.6+16.84 (85%) for the FLSS, THA, and TKA cohorts, respectively, with a range of 5 to 10 years for all three cohorts. The number of patients who have undergone revision including those lost to FU for the FLSS, THA, and TKA cohorts were n=20 (20.2%, same site [n=7] and adjacent segment [n=13]) requiring 27 operations, n=3 (3%, same site) requiring 5 operations, and n=8 (8.1%, same site) requiring 12 operations, respectively (p<.01). The average time to first revision was 56/65/43 months, respectively. Mean postoperative PCS (p<.0001) and MCS (p<.02) scores improved significantly and were durable for all groups at the last FU. The mean changes from baseline PCS/MCS scores to last FU were 8.5/6.4, 12.3/7.0, and 8.3/4.9 for FLSS, THA, and TKA, respectively. Adjusting for baseline age, sex, body mass index, PCS score, and MCS score, there was a strong trend in favor of greater sustained change in the PCS score of THA over FLSS (p=.07) and TKA (p=.08). No difference was noted for change in PCS score between FLSS and TKA (p=.95). No differences were noted for change in MCS score among all three cohorts (p>.1). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in HRQoL after surgical treatment of FLSS with or without spondylolisthesis and hip and knee OA are sustained for a mean of 7 to 8 years, with a minimum of 5-year FU. Despite a higher revision rate, patients undergoing surgery for FLSS can expect a comparable long-term average improvement in HRQoL from baseline compared with their peers undergoing TKA and to a lesser extent THA.

[Insurance costs in pancreatic surgery : does the pecuniary aspect indicate formation of centers?]. / Kostenträgerrechnung in der pankreaschirurgie : spricht die pekuniäre betrachtung für eine zentrenbildung?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic resections in specialized centers are associated with low mortality, however, still with high morbidity. The complication rate can be reduced by long-term experience in high volume centers. In this study the influence of complications on costs in the German DRG system were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data regarding operation time, hospital stay, complications and costs of 36 patients undergoing pancreatic head resection in the years 2005 and 2006 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. A p-value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Postoperative complications caused an increase in the duration of hospital stay from a median of 16 (range 11-38) to 33 (10-69) days. Costs, especially for ICU treatment and radiographic diagnostics, rose significantly. The average overall costs were 10,015 EUR (range 8,099-14,785 EUR) in patients without complications (n = 21) and 15,340 EUR (9,368-31,418 EUR) in patients with complications (n = 15). In contrast, according to the German DRG system 13,835 EUR (10,441-15,062 EUR) and 15,062 EUR (10,441-33,217 EUR) were refunded on average, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This case-cost calculation proves that pancreatic surgery in the context of the German DRG system can only be performed economically neutral in centers with low complications rates. The concentration of pancreatic surgery to centers with low complications rates, namely high volume centers, must be recommended from an economic point of view.

Comparison of on-demand vs planned relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: In patients with severe secondary peritonitis, there are 2 surgical treatment strategies following an initial emergency laparotomy: planned relaparotomy and relaparotomy only when the patient's condition demands it ("on-demand"). The on-demand strategy may reduce mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and costs. However, randomized trials have not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcome, health care utilization, and costs of on-demand and planned relaparotomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, nonblinded clinical trial at 2 academic and 5 regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from November 2001 through February 2005. Patients had severe secondary peritonitis and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 11 or greater. INTERVENTION: Random allocation to on-demand or planned relaparotomy strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was death and/or peritonitis-related morbidity within a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary end points included health care utilization and costs. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients (116 on-demand and 116 planned) were randomized. One patient in the on-demand group was excluded due to an operative diagnosis of pancreatitis and 3 in each group withdrew or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in primary end point (57% on-demand [n = 64] vs 65% planned [n = 73]; P = .25) or in mortality alone (29% on-demand [n = 32] vs 36% planned [n = 41]; P = .22) or morbidity alone (40% on-demand [n = 32] vs 44% planned [n = 32]; P = .58). A total of 42% of the on-demand patients had a relaparotomy vs 94% of the planned relaparotomy group. A total of 31% of first relaparotomies were negative in the on-demand group vs 66% in the planned group (P <.001). Patients in the on-demand group had shorter median intensive care unit stays (7 vs 11 days; P = .001) and shorter median hospital stays (27 vs 35 days; P = .008). Direct medical costs per patient were reduced by 23% using the on-demand strategy. CONCLUSION: Patients in the on-demand relaparotomy group did not have a significantly lower rate of death or major peritonitis-related morbidity compared with the planned relaparotomy group but did have a substantial reduction in relaparotomies, health care utilization, and medical costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51729393.

Decision for retransplantation of the liver: an experience- and cost-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the patient factors affecting patient outcome of first liver retransplantation at a single center to help in the decision process for retransplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Given the critical organ shortage, one of the most controversial questions is whether hepatic retransplantation, the only chance of survival for patients with a failing first organ, should be offered liberally despite its greater cost, worse survival, and the inevitable denial of access to primary transplantation to other patients due to the depletion of an already-limited organ supply. The authors' experience of 139 consecutive retransplantations was reviewed to evaluate the results of retransplantation and to identify the factors that could improve the results. METHODS: From 1986 to 2000, 1,038 patients underwent only one liver transplant and 139 patients underwent a first retransplant at the authors' center (first retransplantation rate = 12%). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables, excluding intraoperative and donor variables, associated with graft and patient long-term survival following first retransplantation. Lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stay and hospital charges incurred during the transplantation admissions were compared for retransplanted patients and primary-transplant patients. RESULTS: One-year, 5-year, and 10-year graft and patient survival rates following retransplantation were 54.0%, 42.5%, 36.8% and 61.2%, 53.7%, and 50.1%, respectively. These percentages were significantly less than those following a single hepatic transplantation at the authors' center during the same period (82.3%, 72.1%, and 66.9%, respectively). On multivariate analysis, three patient variables were significantly associated with a poorer patient outcome: urgency of retransplantation (excluding primary nonfunction), age, and creatinine. Primary nonfunction as an indication for retransplantation, total bilirubin, and factor II level were associated with a better prognosis. The final model was highly predictive of survival: according to the combination of the factors affecting outcome, 5-year patient survival rates varied from 15% to 83%. Retransplant patients had significantly longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and accumulated significantly higher total hospital charges than those receiving only one transplant. CONCLUSIONS These data confirm the utility of retransplantation in the elective situation. In the emergency setting, retransplantation should be used with discretion, and it should be avoided in subgroups of patients with little chance of success.

A lack of consensus in the assessment of fracture healing among orthopaedic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of fracture healing is both a clinically relevant and frequently used outcome measure following lower extremity trauma. However, it remains uncertain whether there is a consensus in the assessment of fracture healing among orthopaedic surgeons. Variability in the assessment of healing may have important implications in surgeons' decisions to intervene when they perceive fracture healing is slow to progress. OBJECTIVE: To identify surgeons' approaches in the assessment of tibial fracture healing and the definitions of a delayed union, nonunion, and malunion among orthopaedic surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of 577 orthopaedic surgeons. METHODS: Focus groups, key informants, and sampling to redundancy strategies were used to develop a survey to examine surgeons' opinions in the assessment of tibial shaft fractures. Surgeons were asked how often the following variables were used in the assessment of fracture healing: (a) callus size; (b) cortical continuity; (c) progressive loss of fracture line; (d) pain with weight bearing; and (e) pain to palpation at the fracture site. Further, surgeons were asked to provide a time point beyond which a delayed union becomes a nonunion. Finally, surgeons specified their limits of acceptable fracture alignment (translation, shortening, rotation, varus/valgus, and procurvatum/recurvatum). The survey was pilot tested for clarity and content validity. This survey was mailed to 577 orthopaedic surgeons who were members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and European-AO International-affiliated trauma centers. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 444 surgeons (response rate 77%). For each variable, the proportion of surgeons who always used the criterion ranged from 39.7% to 45.4%, and those who occasionally or never used the criterion ranged from 20.7% to 26.9%. Surgeons' definitions of delayed union ranged from 1 to 8 months, whereas definitions of nonunion ranged from 2 to 12 months. There was also variability in definitions of fracture malunion. Acceptable degrees of fracture shortening and translation ranged from less than 5 mm to greater than 15 mm. Surgeons' definitions of acceptable angular malunions (rotational, varus/valgus, and procurvatum/recurvatum) ranged from less than 5 degrees to 20 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in the assessment of fracture healing in tibial shaft fractures among orthopaedic surgeons. Varying definitions of nonunion and malunion may influence the decision to intervene in an effort to promote fracture healing and/or realign the fracture.

Total joint replacement: baseline benchmark data for interdisciplinary outcomes management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to define and describe 2 years of adverse outcome variances for elective primary or revision of major total joint replacement in terms of baseline benchmark data. DESIGN: Descriptive variance. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with greater than 4 days in acute care after total joint replacement, patients with unexpected comorbidities that required medical subspecialist management, patients who were transferred to a higher level of care, and patients who did not survive postoperatively. FINDINGS: This review indicates that patients treated on a higher volume dedicated orthopaedic unit experience fewer adverse outcomes and shorter length of stay than patients treated on a general surgical unit. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are treated on a dedicated orthopaedic unit experience significantly fewer adverse outcomes or outcome variations. Costs can be effectively managed, and optimal clinical patient outcomes can be achieved with few complications. Treatment strategies can be used as a template for enhanced care processes for this population.

Rationing failure. The ethical lessons of the retransplantation of scarce vital organs.

Because of a shortage of transplantable livers and hearts, the transplant community has had to decide--by who gets an organ--who lives or dies. Despite this shortage, whether one has previously received a transplant is not used as a criterion to distribute organs. The existing allocation system distributes 10% to 20% of available hearts and livers to retransplant patients. This article examines three differences between primary transplantation and retransplantation that may affect the priority that retransplant candidates should receive in vying for organs: (1) the special obligations that transplant teams have not to abandon patients on whom they have already performed a transplant, (2) the fairness of allowing individuals to get multiple transplants while some die awaiting their first, and (3) the difference in efficacy between primary transplantation and retransplantation. Only this last difference holds up to critical analysis. Our moral duty to direct scarce, lifesaving resources to those likely to benefit from them, suggests that, all other things equal, primary transplant candidates should receive priority because their mortality after transplantation is lower. Consistency also demands that previous transplant history be taken into account, as we already allocate organs according to ABO blood group matching, a factor that affects transplant outcome approximately the same amount as a previous transplantation. We therefore conclude that the system should be revised so that primary transplant candidates have a better chance of receiving organs than retransplant candidates.