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.

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.

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.