Safety of Outpatient Plastic Surgery: A Comparative Analysis Using the TOPS Registry with 286,826 Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient plastic surgery at office-based surgery facilities (OBSFs) and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) has become increasingly prevalent over the past 30 years. Importantly, historical data are inconsistent regarding the safety outcomes of these venues, with advocates for both citing supporting studies. This investigation's purpose is to provide a more definitive comparative evaluation of outcomes and safety for outpatient surgery performed in these facilities. METHODS: The most common outpatient procedures were identified using the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons database between 2008 and 2016. Outcomes were analyzed for OBSFs and ASCs. Patient and perioperative information was also analyzed using regression analysis to identify risk factors for complications. RESULTS: A total of 286,826 procedures were evaluated, of which 43.8% were performed at ASCs and 56.2% at OBSFs. Most patients were healthy, middle-aged women categorized as American Society of Anesthesiologists class I. The incidence of adverse events was 5.7%, and most commonly included antibiotic requirement (1.4%), dehiscence (1.3%), or seroma requiring drainage (1.1%). Overall, there was no significant difference in adverse events between ASCs and OBSFs. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, diabetes, smoking history, general anesthesia, certified registered nurse anesthetist involvement, operative duration, noncosmetic indications, and body region were associated with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an extensive analysis of common plastic surgery procedures performed in an outpatient setting in a representative population. With appropriate patient selection, procedures are safely performed by board-certified plastic surgeons in ambulatory surgery centers and office-based settings, as evidenced by the low incidence of complications in both environments. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Impact of alternative histopathology protocols in the dermatopathology laboratory: A prospective quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Histopathology protocols for processing dermatopathology specimens vary among laboratories. OBJECTIVE: To determine an optimal histopathology protocol to minimize cost and turnaround time (TAT) for biopsy specimens in a dermatopathology laboratory. METHODS: A prospective, 4-month study compared the mean cost and TAT of producing one versus two initial H&E slides, and zero versus three unstained slides that could be used for frequently used special or immunohistochemical (IHC) stains. RESULTS: For all cases, cost was lower for one versus two initial H&E slides, with an insignificant increase in TAT. Producing three vs zero unstained slides incurred higher cost, with no reduction in TAT. In a subset of cases in which frequently used special or IHC stains were performed, cost and TAT were optimized by producing one initial H&E and three unstained slides. CONCLUSION: A protocol of one initial H&E slide and zero unstained slides optimizes cost and TAT in our dermatopathology laboratory. Pigmented lesions and inflammatory dermatoses may benefit from the addition of unstained slides. Further study is needed to quantify this benefit and evaluate for other cases for which an alternative protocol is advantageous.

Imaging gently? Higher rates of computed tomography imaging for pediatric appendicitis in non-children's hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Growing concerns regarding radiation exposure in children have led to recommendations to minimize computed tomography imaging for appendicitis. We hypothesized that within a metropolitan hospital system (1 children's hospital and 8 non-children's hospitals), use of preoperative computed tomography is much greater in non-children's hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients <18 years of age undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis from April 2012 to April 2015. Patient demographics, location, and imaging modality (computed tomography and ultrasonography) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1,448 pediatric patients were identified (children's hospital = 215, 15%; non-children's hospitals = 1,233, 85%). Children's hospital patients had fewer computed tomography scans (23% vs 70%, P < .01) and more ultrasonography (75% vs 20%, P < .01). On multivariate regression, increased preoperative computed tomography use was significantly associated with non-children's hospitals (odds ratio 7.6, 95% confidence interval 5.4-10.8). At non-children's hospitals, older age (age >10: odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1) and higher patient weight (>45 kg odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.8) predicted computed tomography use. Children presenting at a children's hospital were much more likely to undergo ultrasonography (odds ratio 11.7, 95% confidence interval 8.3-16.6). CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in imaging modalities for pediatric appendicitis between a children's hospital and non-children's hospitals. Further investigation is needed to identify other factors contributing to imaging preference in the pediatric population in order to establish clinical practice guidelines to decrease or prevent unnecessary radiation exposure in children.

Prophylactic versus symptomatic Ladd procedures for pediatric malrotation.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal malrotation can lead to volvulus resulting in necrosis, sepsis, and death. For symptomatic patients, treatment includes the Ladd procedure. However, debate remains regarding the timing and need for intervention for asymptomatic infants. We evaluated our experience with Ladd procedures including a clinical practice of prophylactic surgery for asymptomatic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients undergoing the Ladd procedure was performed. Prophylactic Ladd procedures were identified as those occurring before any malrotation-related symptoms. Results were analyzed with student t test, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: From 2011-2014, 42 patients (prophylactic = 19, symptomatic = 23) underwent the Ladd procedure. The median age (IQR, interquartile range) of patients was 9.6 (3.9-18) mo and 18 (2.4-52) mo for prophylactic and symptomatic patients, respectively (P = 0.38). In patients who underwent symptomatic Ladd procedures, nine (39%) had volvulus and one (4.3%) had bowel necrosis at time of surgery. No prophylactic Ladd procedure patients required reoperation, whereas six (26%) symptomatic patients required malrotation-related reoperations (P = 0.02). Median (IQR) days to full enteral feeds were 5.0 d (3.3-6.8) versus 7.4 (5.0-11; P = 0.11), whereas median days to discharge were 8.0 d (6.1-11) versus 11 d (7.5-32) until discharge (P = 0.09) for prophylactic and symptomatic patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although symptomatic patients represent sicker children, the postoperative complications appear to be higher. For infants with known malrotation, prophylactic operations may be beneficial and should be considered. A larger, prospective study to demonstrate effectiveness and generalizability for prophylactic Ladd procedure is warranted.

Meaningful use and good catches: More appropriate metrics for checklist effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of utilizing surgical safety checklists has been recently questioned. We evaluated our checklist performance after implementing a program that includes checklist-related good catches. METHODS: Multifaceted interventions aimed at the preincision checklist and 5 prospective audits were conducted from 2011-2015. We documented adherence to the checklist (verbalization of each checkpoint), fidelity (meaningful performance of each checkpoint), and good catches (events with the potential to cause the patient harm but that were prevented from occurring). Good catches were divided into quality improvement-based categories (processes, medication, safety, communication, and equipment). RESULTS: A total of 1,346 checklist performances were observed (range, 144-373/yr). Adherence to the preincision checklist improved from 30% to 95% (P < .001), while adherence to the preinduction and debriefing checklists decreased (71% to 56%, P = .002) and remained unchanged (76%), respectively. Preincision fidelity decreased from 86% to 76% (P = .012). Good catches were identified during 16% of preincision checklist performances; process issues were most common (32%) followed by issues of medication administration (30%) and safety (22%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a systematic checklist program resulted in significant and sustainable improvement in performance. Meaningful use and associated good catches may be more appropriate metric than actual patient harm for measuring checklist effectiveness. Although not previously described, checklist-related good catches represent an unknown benefit of checklists.

Psychomotor vigilance and visual field test performance.

INTRODUCTION: Visual field test is an invaluable tool to evaluate the detection and progression of glaucoma. On the other hand, as a subjective test, reliable results depend on patients' optimum performance including vigilance during the test. The purpose of this study was to understand patient's attitude and preferences about the visual field test taking, and in addition to assess the relationship between the reliability indices of visual field testing (VFT) and the Walter Reed Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional, non-interventional study, VFT reliability indices were recorded for all 140 patients. In the 46 patients who completed the PVT, average reaction time and minimum reaction times were recorded. All 140 patients completed a survey about their VFT experience. RESULTS: Based on the survey results, most subjects found VFT to be difficult. Subjects who rated their VFT performance excellent/good had similar VFT reliability rates compared to the ones with fair/poor self-assessments. The average reaction time (RT) was 0.6 seconds (0.3-1.9 seconds). Higher average RT was associated with increased age and less formal education (p < 0.001 and 0.03, respectively). There was a marginally significant correlation between average RT and the VFT "reliability" status (p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: While VFT is the least favorable part of the work-up for glaucoma patients, their self-assessment about VFT performance did not correlate with current VF reliability indicators. Although reliability of the VFT was not strongly affected by slower reaction times when tested by the PVT, the effect of psychomotor reaction time on other aspects of test outcomes is unknown and warrants further investigation.