Impact of the Percentage of Overlapping Surgery on Patient Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 87,000 Surgical Cases.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of percentage of surgical overlap with patient outcomes to determine if a detrimental level of overlap exists. BACKGROUND: Overlapping surgery is defined as 1 attending physician supervising 2 or more operative cases simultaneously, without the critical portions of the cases occurring concurrently. To date, no study has examined the relationship of percent overlap, or the percentage of 1 case that is spent overlapping with another, to outcomes, efficiency, safety, and complications. METHODS: This study is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a large tertiary referral center. The primary outcomes of interest included operative duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and patient safety indicators (PSIs). The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the outcomes of interest. P values of ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 87,426 cases were included in this study. There were 62,332 cases without overlap (Group 0), 10,514 cases with 1% to 25% overlap (Group 1), 5303 cases with 26% to 50% overlap (Group 2), 4296 cases with 51% to 75% overlap (Group 3), and 4981 cases with >75% overlap (Group 4). In-hospital mortality decreased as overlap increased ( Ptrend <0.0001). Operative time increased with increasing overlap ( Ptrend <0.0001) while readmission rates showed no statistical significance between groups ( Ptrend =0.5078). Rates of PSIs were lower for Groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.69%, 2.01%, and 2.08%) when compared to Group 0 (2.24%). Group 4 had the highest rate of PSIs at 2.35% ( P =0.0086). CONCLUSION: Overlapping surgery was shown to have reduced in-hospital mortality and similar PSI and readmission rates when compared to nonoverlapping cases. Operative time was shown to increase in overlapping surgeries when compared to nonoverlapping surgeries. The results from this study indicate that the percentage of surgical overlap does not detrimentally affect most patient outcomes, especially with overlap of <75%.

Why Start Now? Retrospective Study Evaluating Baseline Screening Mammography in Patients Age 60 and Older.

PURPOSE: Extensive data exist regarding the importance of baseline mammography and screening recommendations in the age range of 40-50 years old, however, less is known about women who start screening at age 60. The purpose of this retrospective study is to assess the characteristics and outcomes of women aged 60 years and older presenting for baseline mammographic screening. METHODS: This is an IRB-approved single institution retrospective review of data from patients aged 60+ receiving baseline screening mammograms between 2010 and 2022 was obtained. Information regarding patient demographics, breast density, and BI-RADS assessment was acquired from Cerner EHR. Of patients with a BI-RADS 0 assessment, imaging, and chart review was performed. Family history, gynecologic history, prior breast biopsy or surgery, and hormone use was reviewed. For those with a category 4 or 5 assessment after diagnostic work-up, biopsy outcomes were reported. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), PPV2, and PPV3 were calculated. RESULTS: Data was analyzed from 1409 women over age 60 who underwent breast cancer screening. The recall rate was 29.3% (413/1409). The CDR, PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were calculated as 15/1000, 5.2% (21/405), 29.2% (21/72), and 31.8% (21/66), respectively. After work-up, 224 diagnostic patients had a 1-year follow-up and none were diagnosed with breast cancer. One (1.4%, 1/71) of the BI-RADS 3 lesions was malignant at 2-year follow-up. Of the patients recalled from screening, 29.6% had a family history of breast cancer, and the majority of both recalled and nonrecalled patients had Category B breast density. There was no statistically significant difference in breast density or race of patients recalled vs not recalled. 93.2% of recalled cases were given BI-RADS descriptors, with mass and focal asymmetry being the most common lesions, and 22.1% of recalled cases included more than one lesion. CONCLUSION: Initiating screening mammography for patients over 60 years old may result in higher recall rates, but also leads to a high CDR of potentially clinically relevant invasive cancers. After a diagnostic work-up, BI-RADS 3 assessments are within standard guidelines. This study provides guidance for radiologists reading baseline mammograms and clinicians making screening recommendations in patients over age 60.

A course in medical device design & commercialization for medical students pursuing surgical fields.

BACKGROUND: The modern surgeon faces an ever-changing landscape of procedural innovation. The demands of present-day healthcare highlight the importance of successfully developing new medical devices and technologies. This effort requires multidisciplinary collaborations of professionals ranging from manufacturers and engineers to researchers and healthcare providers. Surgeons regularly interact with complex equipment and user interfaces without substantial formal education on their design and development. The objective of this study was to ascertain the impact of a 10-week BME course into a medical school curriculum on surgery-bound students' knowledge of product design and gauge their ability to develop an actual product to meet a real need in a surgical field. METHODS: A Medical Device Design and Commercialization co-enrolled elective course was offered to medical students at a single institution. Five students with an expressed surgical and procedural interest were enrolled. At the beginning of the course, they were tasked with developing a product to meet a clinical need they observed. At the conclusion of the course, students filled out a questionnaire about their level of comfort and knowledge of the material using a 5-point Likert scale. This survey was administered to a control group of medical students who did not take the course. RESULTS: The BME student cohort was able to successfully identify a post-operative need, develop a prototype of a novel device, and present their product to attending surgeons. A total of 35 survey entries were received: five from the experimental group and 30 from the comparison group. The experimental group scored higher than the comparison group for all survey questions and reached the level of statistical significance in 13 of the 15 questions (p < 0.05). Survey respondents reported similar degrees of knowledge and comfort in recognizing unmet needs in a hospital setting and formulating a comprehensive statement describing them. CONCLUSION: The principles of biomedical engineering are integral to advancing the field of surgery. Presently, a small cohort of medical students/residents successfully acquired and applied basic BME concepts in a relatively short period of time relative to other training paradigms. Our findings also suggest medical students recognize unmet needs in the hospital setting, and those who completed a BME course felt more able to take steps to meet those needs. Early integration of biomedical engineering principles in medical training may help produce more innovative and well-rounded surgeons.