Hand Surgical Operating Room Size Allocation: A Comparative Space Utilisation Study.

Background: This study evaluated operating room (OR) space required for various hand surgical procedures. We analysed the size requirements for hand surgical cases divided into four settings: (1) large OR setting requiring fluoroscopy and microsurgical equipment, (2) medium-sized OR setting for cases requiring fluoroscopy, (3) smaller OR setting and (4) minor procedural room without anaesthesia with the aim to describe room size requirements for hand surgery practices. Methods: A variety of hand surgical cases were selected: large cases (microvascular digit replantation), medium-sized cases (closed reduction percutaneous pinning [CRPP] of phalangeal fractures) and smaller cases (carpal tunnel release [CTR]) with and without anaesthesia. Space requirements were compared to general surgery cases (laparoscopic appendectomy) and general orthopaedic surgery cases (cephalomedullary nail [CMN]). Necessary operative equipment was measured (ft2) to calculate requirements for each procedure. Results: Large hand cases such as digit replantation necessitated the most OR space (125 ft2), followed by general orthopaedic cases (CMN; 118 ft2), medium-sized hand cases (CRPP phalanx; 107 ft2), general surgery laparoscopic appendectomy (68 ft2), small hand cases (CTR; 85 ft2) and minor procedures (49 ft2). Conclusions: Hand procedures can be divided into major procedures requiring significant OR space (125 ft2), medium procedures in standard OR suites (107 ft2), procedures in small ORs with anaesthesia (81 ft2) or office-based setting without anaesthesia (49 ft2). These findings help define space utilisation for hand procedures and may have practical implications related to efficiency, cost and patient safety in the hospital and outpatient setting. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Economic and Decision Analyses).

Shared Decision-Making Tool for Opioid Prescribing After Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery in Veterans: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Purpose: We examined whether an educational, shared-decision-making tool designed to empower patients, individualize pain management, and maximize use of nonopioid, over-the-counter analgesics reduces opioid use and waste while maintaining adequate pain relief. Methods: We developed an educational, shared-decision-making tool regarding postoperative pain medication for outpatient hand surgery. Patients randomized to groups with and without the tool were surveyed for 4 weeks after surgery. Survey variables included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain intensity and pain interference scores, as well as the number of oxycodone or over-the-counter pills taken. Results were compared using chi-squared, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Welch's t tests. Results: Fifty-three patients participated: 25 in the shared-tool group and 28 in the no-tool group. The mean age was 60 years, with more women in the no-tool group than the shared-tool group (n =17 versus 11, respectively). The shared-tool group averaged 6.4 prescribed oxycodone pills, versus 10 for the no-tool group (P < .01). The median numbers of oxycodone pills taken the first week after surgery were 2 (interquartile range, 6) for the shared-tool group and 3 (interquartile range, 6) for the no-tool group (P = .97). Patient-reported outcome measures for pain intensity and pain interference were not significantly different for weeks 1, 3, and 4 after surgery. Pain interference was significantly lower in week 2 in the shared-tool group (difference, -4.4; 95% confidence interval, -8.57 to -0.30; P = .04). Conclusions: The shared-tool group had equivalent or better pain control and were prescribed a lower number of opioid pain pills than the no-tool group. Both groups used nonopioid medications, with no difference in the types of over-the-counter medications used. Shared decision-making strategies could be applied to other outpatient orthopedic surgical settings, and may reduce the amount of opioids prescribed without compromising pain control. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic II.

Management of Recalcitrant Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

Cubital tunnel syndrome is a common upper extremity compressive neuropathy. Recalcitrant cubital tunnel syndrome poses diagnostic and treatment challenges. Potential etiologies of persistent or recurrent symptoms after surgical treatment include an inaccurate preoperative diagnosis, incomplete nerve decompression, iatrogenic injury, postsurgical perineural adhesions, irreversible nerve pathology, or conditions associated with secondary nerve compression. Confirmation of recalcitrant ulnar nerve pathology relies on a thorough history to consider symptoms and chronology, careful examination to quantify nerve function and to assess for focal nerve provocation, and objective testing to highlight a possible nerve lesion such as ultrasonography and electrodiagnostic testing. Conservative treatment may provide symptomatic relief; however, surgical management such as revision neuroplasty, neurolysis, nerve reconstruction, and/or anterior transposition may be indicated. Optimizing the biology of the local nerve environment is critical. No surgical treatment procedure has shown superiority over another; however, individualized treatment is emphasized to improve symptoms and maximize nerve recovery potential.

Outcomes of Orthopedic Hand Surgeries in Minor Procedure Rooms at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Purpose: There is a high demand for minor hand surgeries within the veteran population. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and resource use at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) of hand surgeries performed in minor procedure rooms (MPR) and operating rooms using local anesthesia with or without monitored anesthesia care. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients undergoing carpal tunnel release, de Quervain's release, foreign body removal, soft tissue mass excision, or A1 pulley release at a VAMC over a 5-year period. Data collected included demographic information, mental health comorbidities, presence of preoperative and postoperative pain, complications after surgery, time to surgery, number of personnel in surgery, turnover time between cases, and time spent in the postanesthesia care unit. Statistical analysis included Fisher exact or chi-square analysis to compare MPR versus operating room groups and Student t test or Mann-Whitney test to compare continuous variables. Results: In this cohort of 331 cases, 123 and 208 patients underwent surgery in MPRs and operating rooms, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative pain were similar between the MPR and operating room groups. Complications were slightly lower in the MPR group versus the operating room group (0% MPR vs 2.9% operating room). Median time from surgical consult to surgery was 6 days less for MPR patients (15 vs 21). The MPR cases also used fewer personnel during surgery, averaging 4.76 versus 4.99 people. The MPR patients spent 9 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit (median, 36 vs 45 minutes) and turnover time between cases was nearly 8 minutes faster in MPRs than in operating rooms (median, 20 vs 28 minutes). Conclusions: Minor procedure rooms at a VAMC allow more veteran patients to be scheduled for minor hand surgeries within a shorter time frame, utilize less staff and postoperative monitoring, and maintain excellent outcomes with limited complications. Clinical relevance: Minor hand surgeries in MPRs have outcomes equivalent to those of operating rooms with improved time savings and resource use.