Quantifying postoperative recovery using wearable activity monitors following abdominal wall surgery: The AbTech trial.

PURPOSE: This work aimed to investigate the validity of wearable activity monitors (WAMs) as an objective tool to measure the return toward normal functional mobility following abdominal wall surgery. This was achieved by quantifying and comparing pre- and postoperative physical activity (PA). METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study was designed. Patients undergoing abdominal wall surgery were assessed for eligibility and consent for study participation was obtained. Participants were asked to wear a WAM (AX3, Axivity) on the wrist of their dominant hand at least 48 hours pre-operatively, for up to 2 weeks postop, and again after 6 months postop for 48 hours. RESULTS: A cohort of 20 patients were recruited in this validation study with a mean age of 47.3 ± 13.0 years. Postoperation, the percentage median PA (±IQR) dropped to 32.6% (20.1), whereas on day 14, PA had reached 64.6% (22.7) of the preoperative value providing construct validity. Activity levels at >6 months postop increased by 16.4% on an average when compared to baseline preoperative PA (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that WAMs are valid markers of postoperative recovery following abdominal wall surgery. This was achieved by quantifying the reduction in PA postoperation, which has not been previously shown. In addition, this study suggests that abdominal wall surgery may improve the patient's quality of life via increased functional mobility at 6 months postop. In the future, this technology could be used to identify the patient and surgical factors that are predictors of outcome following abdominal wall surgery.

Identifying variation in the cost of abdominally based breast reconstruction in the UK.

AIMS: To understand variation in the cost of autologous breast reconstruction in the UK, including identifying key areas of cost variability, differences between and within units and the impact of enhanced recovery protocols (ERAS). METHODS: A micro-costing study was designed based on the responses to a national survey of clinical preferences completed by the majority of plastic surgeons and anaesthetists involved in the UK. Detailed costs were estimated from macro elements such as ward and theatre running costs, down to that of surgical meshes, anaesthetic drugs and flap monitoring devices. RESULTS: The largest variation in cost arose from postoperative location and length of stay, preoperative imaging and flap monitoring strategies. Plastic surgeon costs varied from £1282 to £3141, whereas anaesthetic costs were between £32 and £151 (not including salary). Estimated cost variation within units was up to £893 per case. Units with ERAS had significantly lower total costs than those without (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study reveals significant cost variation in breast reconstruction in the UK based on clinician preferences. Many areas of practice driving this variation lack strong evidence of any clinical advantage. The total cost of a deep inferior epigastric perforator in the majority, if not all units, likely surpasses the national tariff for reimbursement, particularly when considering additional resource demand for immediate and bilateral breast reconstruction, as well as future symmetrisation procedures. Whilst units should look to streamline costs through ERAS, there should also be a realistic tariff that promotes excellent care.