Development of a prospective biliary dashboard to compare performance and surgical cost.

BACKGROUND: Transparency around surgeon level data may align healthcare delivery with quality care for patients. Biliary surgery includes numerous procedures performed by both general surgeons and subspecialists alike. Cholecystectomy is a common surgical procedure and an optimal cohort to measure quality outcomes within a healthcare system. METHODS: Data were collected for 5084 biliary operations performed by 68 surgeons in 11 surgical divisions in a health system including a tertiary academic hospital, two regional community hospitals, and two ambulatory surgery centers. A privacy protected dashboard was developed to compare surgeon performance and cost between July 2018 and June 2022. A sample cohort of patients ≥ 18 years who underwent cholecystectomy were compared by operative time, cost, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 4568 cholecystectomy procedures were performed by 57 surgeons. Operations were done by 57 surgeons in four divisions and included 3846 (84.2%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies, 601 (13.2%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies with cholangiogram, and 121 (2.6%) open cholecystectomies. Patients were admitted from the emergency room in 2179 (47.7%) cases while 2389 (52.3%) cases were performed in the ambulatory setting. Individual surgeons were compared to peers for volume, intraoperative data, cost, and outcomes. Cost was lowest at ambulatory surgery centers, yet only 4.2% of elective procedures were performed at these facilities. Prepackaged kits with indocyanine green were more expensive than cholangiograms that used iodinated contrast. The rate of emergency department visits was lowest when cases were performed at ambulatory surgery centers. CONCLUSION: Data generated from clinical dashboards can inform surgeons as to how they compare to peers regarding quality metrics such as cost, time, and complications. In turn, this may guide strategies to standardize care, optimize efficiency, provide cost savings, and improve outcomes for cholecystectomy procedures. Future application of clinical dashboards can assist surgeons and administrators to define value-based care.

Management of urologic prosthetic reservoirs at the time of inguinal or pelvic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The artificial urinary sphincter and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis each require a fluid storage component and thus have components in the inguinal and pelvic regions. Because of this, patients with urologic prosthetics sometimes present challenges during future nonprosthetic operations. Presently, there is no established guideline for device management with ensuing inguinal or pelvic surgery. AIMS: This article outlines concerns during pelvic and inguinal surgery for patients with an artificial urinary sphincter and/or inflatable penile prosthesis and proposes an algorithm for preoperative surgical planning and decision making. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the literature on operative management of these prosthetic devices. Publications were identified by searching electronic databases. Only peer-reviewed publications available in English were considered for this review. RESULTS: We review the important considerations as well as available options for operative management of these prosthetic devices during subsequent nonprosthetic surgery and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. Finally, we suggest a framework for helping surgeons determine which management strategy is most appropriate for their individual patients. CONCLUSION: The best management strategy will differ depending on patient values, the planned surgery, and patient-specific factors. Surgeons should understand and counsel patients on all available options and encourage informed, shared decision making to determine the best individualized approach.