Peri-operative hyperglycemia: a consideration for general surgery?

Background

Intraoperative hyperglycemia in cardiac and neurosurgical patients is significantly associated with morbidity. Little is known about the perioperative glycemic profile or its impact in other surgical populations or in nondiabetic patients.

Methods

A systematic review of blood glucose values during major general surgical procedures reported since 1980 was conducted. Data extracted included blood glucose measures, study sample size, gender distribution, age grouping, study purpose, surgical procedure, anesthetic details, and infusion regime. Excluded studies were those with subjects with diabetes insipidus, insulin-treated diabetes, renal or hepatic failure, adrenal gland tumors or dysfunction, pregnancy, and emergency or trauma surgery.

Results

Blood glucose levels rose significantly with the induction of anesthesia (P < .001) in nondiabetic patients. At incision, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 6 hours, 30%, 40%, 38%, and 40% of studies, respectively, reported hyperglycemia.

Conclusions

Factors that confound or protect against significant rises in perioperative glycemic levels in nondiabetic patients were identified. The findings facilitate investigating the impact of hyperglycemia on general surgical outcomes.     

Is the axillary artery a suitable cannulation site in aortic surgery?

AIM: The axillary artery is currently gaining interest as an alternative to femoral artery cannulation in aortic surgery. It was the aim of our study to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of axillary artery cannulation in a series of patients undergoing surgery of the ascending aorta and/or the aortic arch. METHODS: From 1998 to 2002 cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) perfusion via the axillary artery was intended in 35 patients (28 male), median age 61 (22-77) years. The underlying disease was acute aortic dissection type A in 22/35 (63%), chronic aortic dissection type A in 2/35 (6%), ascending aortic aneurysm in 8/35 (22%), aortic regurgitation after previous ascending aortic replacement in 1/35 (3%), pseudoaneurysm after Bentall operation in 1/35 (3%) and coronary artery disease with severe arteriosclerosis of the aorta in 1/35 (3%). RESULTS: Conversion to femoral artery or ascending aortic cannulation was necessary in 3 patients. In the other cases, adequate CPB flows of 2.4 l/m2/min were achieved. In 1 case local dissection of the axillary artery occurred after emergency cannulation. No postoperative complications related to axillary artery cannulation, such as upper extremity ischemia, brachial plexus injury, or local wound infection occurred. No new postoperative stroke was noted, hospital mortality was 4/35 (11%) patients. CONCLUSION: Axillary artery cannulation is feasible in the majority of cases and seems to be a safe and effective method in surgery of the ascending aorta and aortic arch. Several disadvantages of femoral artery cannulation and perfusion can be avoided.     

Trauma surgery by general surgeons: Still an option for proximal femoral fractures?

IntroductionSurgery for proximal femoral fractures in the Netherlands is performed by trauma surgeons, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to assess whether there is a difference in outcome for patients with proximal femoral fractures operated by trauma surgeons versus general surgeons. Secondly, the relation between hospital and surgeon volume and postoperative complications was explored.MethodsPatients of 18 years and older were included if operated for a proximal femoral fracture by a trauma surgeon or a general surgeon in two academic, eight teaching and two non-teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from January 2010 until December 2013. The combined endpoint was defined as reoperation or surgical site infection. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for patient and fracture characteristics and hospital and surgeon volume. Categories for hospital volume were >170/year (high volume), 96–170/year (medium volume) and <96/year (low volume).ResultsIn 4552 included patients 2382 (52.3%) had surgery by a trauma surgeon. Postoperative complications occurred in 276 (11.6%) patients operated by a trauma surgeon and in 258 (11.9%) operated by a general surgeon (p = 0.751). When considering confounders in a multivariate analysis, surgery by trauma surgeons was associated with less postoperative complications (OR 0.746; 95%CI 0.580–0.958; p = 0.022). Surgery in high volume hospitals was also associated with less complications (OR 0.997; 95%CI 0.995–0.999; p = 0.012). Surgeon volume was not associated with complications (OR 1.008; 95%CI 0.997–1.018; p = 0.175).ConclusionSurgery by trauma surgeons and high hospital volume are associated with less reoperations and surgical site infections for patients with proximal femoral fractures.     

Hepato-pancreato-biliary training in general surgery residency: is it enough for the real world?

Background

Advanced training in hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery is available at select centers. No approved fellowships have yet been established.

Objective

To determine the level of training in HPB surgery during general surgery residency and to assess the need for additional training.

Method

All general surgical residency programs in the United States were surveyed. Resident Review Committee (RRC) and International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) requirements were compared to Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) data.

Results

Eighty of 250 general surgical residency programs (32%) responded to the survey. Eighty percent felt their graduating residents had sufficient HPB training. The average number of pancreatic cases per graduating resident was 10.2 ± 7.3. The average number of hepatic resections was 8.6 ± 5.1, and for complex biliary cases, 5.3 ± 1.3.

Conclusions

A significant portion of HPB surgery is performed at transplant centers or by HPB surgeons. Guidelines must be established to assure adequate training. When HPB surgery is the main focus of the future practice, residents should seek additional training.     

What price for general surgery?

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine the cost-benefit analysis of adding a full emergency general surgery (EGS) arm to a trauma/critical care (TCC) service with limited EGS activity in a Level I trauma center. METHODS: Data on the composition, activity, and billings of a TCC were collected and compared before (January 1, 2002-June 30, 2003) and after (July 1, 2003-December 31, 2003) it assumed the care of all unassigned EGS patients. These included patient volume and demographics, service, procedures, on-call/service activity, and professional billings and collections. Data are means +/- SD or percentages. Intergroup comparisons were performed by using t test or chi2 as appropriate; significance was assumed for values of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Deploying an EGS arm increased coverage weeks (+52 weeks) and necessitated additional staffing (pre-EGS, n = 5; post-EGS, n = 6). Trauma operative volume remained constant (8.2 vs. 10.3 per month), EGS and elective case load increased (28.7 vs. 60 per month; p < 0.01), and the EGS case/consult ratio decreased from 0.81 to 0.64 (p < 0.01). This expanded activity was associated with reduced on-call nonclinical hours, from 3.2 +/- 0.9 to 1.1 +/- 0.8 (p < 0.01), and increased outpatient visits (68.6 vs. 91.1 per month; p < 0.01) and off-service time used for elective operations (22.3 vs. 76%; p < 0.01). Billings significantly increased in each arm compared with the pre-EGS study period (operating room, +44.8; intensive care unit, +12.5; outpatient, +48.7%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Integrating a full EGS into a TCC service encumbers increased nontrauma unscheduled clinical activity in the operating room, clinic, and floors, which resulted in enhanced billings. These beneficial effects were accrued at the expense of individual time and investment in recruiting additional faculty.     

Retroperitoneal approach for aortic surgery: is it worth it?

BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest that earlier hospital discharges and reduced postoperative complications occur when a retroperitoneal approach is used for aortic surgery. Other publications refute this concept. In an effort to determine the most cost efficient method for aortic surgery in our institution, while maintaining high standards of care and outcome, we compared the retroperitoneal approach to the conventional transperitoneal aortic operation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 1995 and April 1998, 120 patients underwent aortic surgery by either the transperitoneal (n=60) or retroperitoneal approach (n=60). All patients were enrolled prospectively in a vascular registry and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three vascular surgeons. A clinical pathway for elective aortic surgery was developed and applied to both groups. Patients were evaluated with respect to demographics, comorbidities, preoperative risk stratification, conduct of the operative procedure, length of stay, complications, cost, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. The indications for aortic surgery were similar in both groups - 64% for aneurysm disease and 36% for occlusive disease. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic aneurysms were included and size ranged from 4.4 to 14cm. All aortic reconstructions were done in the standard manner using knitted Dacron velour prostheses in either the aortic tube, bi-iliac or bi-femoral configuration. Statistical analysis of means and medians was accomplished using the Wilcoxin Rank-sum test and percentages were compared using Fisher's Exact test. P values less than 0.05 indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics. The incidence of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, tobacco abuse, distal lower extremity occlusive disease and the results of chemical myocardial stress evaluations were similar in both groups. Comorbidities of pre-existing renal insufficiency/failure and morbid obesity were increased in the retroperitoneal group. Five patients in the retroperitoneal group represented redo aortic surgery and there were no redo procedures in the transperitoneal group. Length of operative procedures and blood replacement requirements for both groups were similar. The transperitoneal group required 2-3l more intraoperative intravenous (IV) crystalloid than the retroperitoneal group (P<0.0001). Statistically significant reductions in ICU days, postoperative ileus and total lengths of stay were observed in the retroperitoneal group (P<0.0001). This resulted in substantial reductions in hospital costs for the retroperitoneal group (P<0.01). Postoperative complications were similar for both groups except for statistically significant increases in pulmonary edema (P<0.01) and pneumonia (P<0.001) in the transperitoneal group. Cardiac arrhythmias, primarily atrial dysrhythmias, were more frequent in the transperitoneal group but this failed to reach statistical significance (P<0.16). Combined thirty day mortality was 0.9%. Time of recovery to full activity and patient satisfaction substantially favored the retroperitoneal group. CONCLUSION: Our clinical pathway and algorithm for aortic surgery was easily followed by those patients in the retroperitoneal approach group and resulted in decreases in ICU time, postoperative ileus, volume of intraoperative crystalloid and total length of stay. The patients in the transperitoneal group often failed to progress appropriately on the pathway. Reduced hospital costs associated with aortic surgery using the retroperitoneal approach has increased the profitability for this surgery in our institution by an average of $4000 per case and has increased the value (quality/cost) of this surgery to our patients and our institution.     

Priority assessment of patients for elective general surgery: game on?

Background: Clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC) are used to generate a score by which patients are prioritized and rationed for elective surgery. It is widely believed that surgeons elevate scores to ensure their patients’ acceptance for elective surgery, colloquially called gaming. The purpose of the present paper was therefore to investigate whether there was a temporal trend to an increase in the assigned priority score from the inception of CPAC to the present. Methods: Priority and weighted inlier equivalent separations (WIES) scores between 23 April 1999 and 23 July 2002 were collected for elective general surgical cases at Auckland Hospital. A total of 5440 cases was retrospectively analysed using multiple regression techniques. Priority score was included as the dependent variable and time as an independent variable. Any change in case complexity over that period was accounted for by including the WIES score as a covariate. Multiple regression was undertaken for the combined surgeons and for individuals. Results: The combined model was statistically significant but accounted for only 17% of the priority score variance. An increase of one WIES unit leads to an increase of 2.7 in priority score (P = 0.0001). The relationship of priority score with time was dependent on the surgeon performing the prioritization. However, only half the surgeons had individual models that indicated gaming. Conclusions: The results show that gaming is occurring but that not all surgeons participate in this. The difference between surgeons’ participation in gaming is a potential source of practice variation in the prioritization process.     

When is enough enough? Secondary surgery for cleft lip and palate patients

Secondary cleft surgery differs from the primary surgery in two important respects: (1) the patient can participate in the choices of whether and how to proceed and (2) there is no universal consensus among professionals and lay persons alike that intervention is necessary. This article condenses a personal experience with secondary cleft surgery and attempts to answer "when is enough enough?"