Effect of Standardized Reminder Calls on Trauma Patient No-Show Rate.

BACKGROUND: Most patients who sustain a traumatic injury require outpatient follow-up. A common barrier to outpatient postadmission care is patient failure to follow-up. One of the most significant factors resulting in failure to follow-up is age more than 35 years. Recent work has shown that follow-up telephone calls reduce readmission rates. Our aim was to decrease no-show appointments by 10% in 12 months. STUDY DESIGN: The electronic medical records at our level I and II trauma centers were queried for all outpatient appointments for trauma between July 1, 2020, and June 9, 2021, and whether the patient attended their follow-up appointment. Patients with visits scheduled after August 1, 2021, received 24- and 48-hour previsit reminder calls. Patients with visits scheduled between July 1, 2020, and August 1, 2021, did not receive previsit calls. Both groups were compared using multivariable direct logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 1,822 follow-up opportunities were included in the study. During the pre-implementation phase, there was a no-show rate of 30.9% (329 of 1,064 visits). Postintervention, a 12.2% reduction in overall no-show rate occurred. A statistically significant 11.2% decrease (p < 0.001) was seen in elderly patients. Multivariate analysis showed standardized calls resulted in significantly decreased odds of failing to keep an appointment (adjusted odds ratio = 0.610, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reminder calls led to a 12.2% reduction in no-show rate and were an independent predictor of a patient's likelihood of attending their appointment. Other predictors of attendance included insurance status and abdominal injury.

Cost analysis of robotic assisted general surgery cases in a single academic institution.

Laparoscopy is currently the standard approach for minimally invasive general surgery procedures. However, robotic surgery is now increasingly being used in general surgery. Robotic surgery provides several advantages such as 3D-visualization, articulated instruments, improved ergonomics, and increased dexterity, but is also associated with an increased overall cost which limits its widespread use. In our institution, the robotic assisted approach is frequently used for the performance of general surgery cases including inguinal hernias, cholecystectomies and paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repairs. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the differences in cost between a robotic and laparoscopic approach for the above-mentioned cases. With IRB approval, we conducted a retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing inguinal hernia repairs, cholecystectomies and PEH repairs between June 2018 and November 2020. Patients who had a concomitant procedure, a revisional surgery, or bilateral inguinal hernia repair were excluded from the study. Cost analysis was performed using a micro-costing approach. Statistical significance was denoted by p < 0.05. There were no differences among the different groups in relation to age, gender, ethnicity, and BMI. The overall cost of the robotic (R-) approach compared to a laparoscopic (L-) approach was significantly lower for cholecystectomy ($3,199.96 vs $4019.89, p < 0.05). For inguinal hernia repairs and PEH repairs without mesh, we found no significant difference in overall costs between the R- and L- approach (R- $3835.06 vs L- $3783.50, p = 0.69) and (R- $6852.41 vs L- $6819.69, p = 0.97), respectively. However, the overall cost of PEH with mesh was significantly higher for the R- group compared to the L- group (R- $7,511.09 vs L- $6,443.32, p < 0.05). Based on our institutional cost data, use of a robotic approach when performing certain general surgery cases does not seem to be cost prohibitive.

Direct medical costs of robotic sleeve gastrectomy compared to laparoscopic approach in a single academic center.

BACKGROUND: The use of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery remains controversial because of lack of level I evidence to support its superiority compared to the laparoscopic approach and because of cost concerns. Recently, an extended use program (EUP) for robotic instruments was also introduced at our institution to help reduce the associated direct medical costs of robotic surgery. OBJECTIVES:  To evaluate the direct medical costs of a robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) and compare it to a standard laparoscopic approach (L-SG). SETTING:  Academic, tertiary care center. METHODS:  The analysis included the last 50 R-SG performed at our institution between June 1st 2019 and October 31st 2020. Those cases were compared to the L-SG cases (29 cases) performed in the same time period. All revisions or conversions were then excluded which resulted in a total of 74 primary SG (R-SG = 45 and L-SG = 29). Direct medical costs included operating room cost, instrument cost, miscellaneous cost, and cost of hospital stay. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system. Patients who underwent a primary SG or a primary SG with a concomitant Paraesophageal Hernia Repair (PEH) were analyzed separately using Mann-Whitney rank sum tests and Student's t tests. An additional analysis and subanalysis of the groups was also performed after applying the potential savings of the Extended Use Program (EUP). RESULTS:  Overall, the direct medical cost of R-SG was comparable to L-SG ($6330.77 vs $6804.12 respectively, p = 0.07). The direct medical cost of patients undergoing SG alone without PEH was significantly lower in the R-group compared to the L-group ($5927.08 vs $6508.01, respectively, p = 0.04). When applying the EUP savings to our data, the predicted direct medical cost of R-SG becomes significantly lower than L-SG ($6145.77 vs $6804.12 respectively, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION:  At our academic medical center, we found no difference in direct medical costs between R-SG and L-SG. With the application of the EUP, direct medical costs of R-SG can be significantly lowered compared to L-SG. It is important to consider that cost data are largely dependent upon the academic medical center of interest, and surgeons need to collect their own cost data to evaluate whether robotic surgery is feasible at their institution.

Current Trends in the Utilization of a Robotic Approach in the Field of Bariatric Surgery.

PURPOSE: The utilization rate of robotic surgery for bariatric procedures is not well-described. Our study identified the proportion of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedures in the United States between 2015 and 2020 performed using a robotic (R-) or laparoscopic (L-) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis of the 2015-2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant User Data File (PUF) datasets was performed. The primary outcome was (1) surgical cases performed annually and (2) proportion of cases performed using a R- or L- approach. Analysis was done separately for sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), and revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). Statistical analysis consisted of means and proportions, fold difference, annual slope, and Student's t tests or chi-square tests as appropriate, with statistical significance set to p < .05. RESULTS: A total of 1,135, 214 procedures were captured between 2015 and 2020. R-RYGB increased from 2554 to 6198 (6.8% to 16.7%), R-SG increased from 5229 to 17,063 (6.0% to 17.2%), R-RBS increased from 993 to 3386 (4.7% to 17.4%), and R-BPD-DS increased from 221 to 393 (22.0% to 28.4%). The greatest annual increase was observed among R-RBS and R-SG (3.70-fold difference; slope 2.4% per year and 2.87-fold difference; slope 2.2% per year, respectively). CONCLUSION: There is a nationwide increase in the utilization of a R- approach in bariatric surgery. There are concerns related to the potential increase in healthcare expenditures related to robotics. Further studies are needed to establish key performance indicators along with guidelines for training, adoption and utilization of a R- approach.

Identification of Seniors at Risk Scoring in Geriatric Trauma: Exploring Clinical Outcome Correlations.

Introduction: Geriatric trauma patients (GTP) make up an increasing percentage of the overall trauma population. Due to frailty, GTP are at an increased risk of morbidity and readmission. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to prognosticate outcomes to assist with resource utilization. We hypothesized that the "Identification of Seniors at Risk" (ISAR) score may correlate with both clinical outcomes and resource utilization for geriatric trauma patients. Methods: Patients older than 65 years who were admitted to the trauma service were screened using an ISAR scoring algorithm. Outcomes, including 30-day mortality, all-cause morbidity, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, functional independence measures (FIM) at discharge, and percent discharged to a facility, were analyzed. Both descriptive and data-appropriate parametric and non-parametric statistical approaches were utilized, with significance set at α = 0.05. Results: One thousand and two hundred seventeen GTP were included in this study. The average age was 81, median injury severity score was 9, and 99% had a blunt trauma mechanism. ISAR scores were generally associated with increasing 30-day mortality (0%, 1.9%, 2.4%, and 2.1% for ISAR 0, ISAR 1-2, ISAR 3-4, and ISAR 5-6, respectively), morbidity (2.6%, 7.6%, 14.7%, and 7.3% for respective categories), longer hospital (3.1, 4.6, 5.1, and 4.3 days, respectively) and ICU stays (0.37, 0.64, 0.81, and 0.67, respectively), lower FIM score at discharge (18.5, 17.1, 15.8, and 14.4, for respective categories), as well as increasing percentage of patients discharged to a facility (29.8%, 58.9%, 72.1%, and 78.8% for respective categories). Conclusions: This exploratory study provides important early insight into potential relationships between ISAR and geriatric trauma outcomes. ISAR screening is a quick and easy-to-use tool that may be useful in GTP triage, level-of-care determination, and disposition planning. Understanding populations at risk, especially those with more intricate discharge needs, is an important step in mitigating those risks and implementing appropriate care plans.

Early halo immobilization of displaced traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study evaluating early halo immobilization of Types II and IIA hangman's fractures. OBJECTIVE: To determine the treatment efficacy of early halo immobilization of Type II and IIA hangman's fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of hangman's fractures with traction reduction is well established, but the time required in traction before the institution of halo-vest immobilization is controversial. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients admitted to a level one spinal cord injury center between 1986 and 1999 with either a Type II or IIA hangman's fracture was performed. Initial and final radiographs were measured for translation and angulation. The need for reapplication of traction was also recorded. RESULTS: There were a total of 27 Type II and four Type IIA fractures. Of the Type II fractures, 21 went onto union after early halo immobilization. Six patients required reapplication of traction reduction because of fracture displacement. The Type IIA fractures all progressed to union. The discerning factor between the failure group and the success group was the initial degree of angulation on lateral cervical radiography. The patients requiring reapplication of traction had an initial fracture angulation of 12 degrees or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Early halo immobilization after traction reduction of Type II and IIA hangman's fractures is an effective method of management. Type II fractures with an angulation of greater than or equal to 12 degrees may require an extended period of traction to ensure adequate long-term fracture alignment.