Stephen W. Abernathy

A Prospective Treatment Protocol for Outpatient Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis

BACKGROUND Many laparoscopic procedures are currently performed on an outpatient basis. Laparoscopic appendectomy, however, continues to require postoperative hospitalization at most institutions. A treatment protocol for outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy was developed to determine if this could be successfully performed without increasing postoperative complications. We hypothesized that adopting an outpatient protocol for laparoscopic appendectomy will significantly increase the rate of outpatient management for uncomplicated appendicitis, without an increase in morbidity or mortality. STUDY DESIGN We initiated a prospective outpatient protocol for laparoscopic appendectomy in July 2010 at our institution. All patients having laparoscopic appendectomy from July 2010 to March 2011 were included as protocol patients and were retrospectively reviewed. A separate group of patients having laparoscopic appendectomy from January to September 2009 were analyzed as historical controls. These 2 groups were compared for demographics, preoperative comorbidities, outpatient management, and postoperative morbidity by chi-square analysis, with a 0.95 confidence level for statistical significance. RESULTS A total of 116 protocol patients were compared with 119 historical control patients. There were no significant differences in patient demographics, preoperative comorbidities, and pathologic findings between protocol patients and historical controls. Ninety-nine protocol patients (85.3%) had procedures as outpatients compared with 42 historical control patients (35.3%; p < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity occurred in 6 protocol patients (5.2%) and 10 historical controls (8.4%; p = NS). There were no readmissions or mortalities in the protocol group. CONCLUSIONS An outpatient protocol for laparoscopic appendectomy significantly increased the rate of outpatient management with no increase in morbidity or mortality. This practice has now become standard of care at our institution.

Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy should be the standard of care for uncomplicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND In 2012, a protocol for routine outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis was published reflecting high success, low morbidity, and significant cost savings. Despite this, national data reflect that the majority of laparoscopic appendectomies are performed with overnight admission. This study updates our experience with outpatient appendectomy since our initial report, confirming the efficacy of this approach. METHODS In July 2010, a prospective protocol for outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy was adopted at our institution. Patients were dismissed from the postanesthesia recovery room or day surgery if they met predefined criteria for dismissal. Patients admitted to a hospital room as either full admission or observation status were considered failures of outpatient management. An institutional review board–approved retrospective review of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis from July 2010 through December 2012 was performed to analyze success of outpatient management, postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as readmission rates. RESULTS Three hundred forty-five patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis during this time frame. There were 166 men and 179 women, with a mean age of 35 years. Three hundred five patients were managed as outpatients, with a success rate of 88%. Forty patients (12%) were admitted for preexisting comorbidities (15 patients), postoperative morbidity (6 patients), or lack of transportation or home support (19 patients). Twenty-three patients (6.6%) experienced postoperative morbidity. There were no mortalities. Four patients (1%) were readmitted for transient fever, nausea/vomiting, partial small bowel obstruction, and deep venous thrombosis. CONCLUSION Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed with a high rate of success, a low morbidity, and a low readmission rate. This study reaffirms our original pilot study and should serve as the basis for a change in the standard of care for appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level V.

Concurrent Chart Review Provides More Accurate Documentation and Increased Calculated Case Mix Index, Severity of Illness, and Risk of Mortality

BACKGROUND Case mix index (CMI) is calculated to determine the relative value assigned to a Diagnosis-Related Group. Accurate documentation of patient complications and comorbidities and major complications and comorbidities changes CMI and can affect hospital reimbursement and future pay for performance metrics. STUDY DESIGN Starting in 2010, a physician panel concurrently reviewed the documentation of the trauma/acute care surgeons. Clarifications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services term-specific documentation were made by the panel, and the surgeon could incorporate or decline the clinical queries. A retrospective review of trauma/acute care inpatients was performed. The mean severity of illness, risk of mortality, and CMI from 2009 were compared with the 3 subsequent years. Mean length of stay and mean Injury Severity Score by year were listed as measures of patient acuity. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and t-test, with p < 0.05 for significance. RESULTS Each year demonstrated an increase in severity of illness, risk of mortality, and CMI compared with baseline values (p < 0.05). Length of stay was not significantly different, reflecting similar patient populations throughout the study. Injury Severity Score decreased in 2011 and 2012 compared with 2009, reflecting a lower level of injury in the trauma population. CONCLUSIONS A concurrent documentation review significantly increases severity of illness, risk of mortality, and CMI scores in a trauma/acute care service compared with pre-program levels. These changes reflect more accurate key word documentation rather than a change in patient acuity. The increased scores might impact hospital reimbursement and more accurately stratify outcomes measures for care providers.

Comparison of a standardized negative pressure wound therapy protocol after midline celiotomy to primary skin closure and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management

abstract A negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) protocol using Hydrofera Blue® bacteriostatic foam wicks and silver-impregnated foam overlay to close midline skin incisions after emergency celiotomy was compared to primary skin closure only and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management as part of a quality improvement initiative. This single-institution retrospective cohort study assessed all consecutive emergency celiotomies from July 2013 to June 2014 excluding clean wounds. Included variables were demographics, wound classification, NPWT days, and surgical site occurrences (SSOs). Primary outcome was days of NPWT. Secondary outcomes included SSOs (surgical site infections, fascial dehiscence, return to operating room). Analysis used exact chi-square between categorical variables, Kruskal-Wallis for analysis of variance for ordinal and categorical variables, and Wilcoxon rank sum for total days of NPWT. One hundred fifty-eight patients underwent emergency celiotomy with primary skin closure (n = 51), open NPWT (n = 63), or the NPWT protocol (n = 44). There was no difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score, body mass index, wound classification, or SSO between the three groups. Total NPWT days were reduced in protocol versus open NPWT (median 3 vs 20.5 days, range 3–51 vs 3–405 days, P = 0.001). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol had fewer patients discharged with NPWT than open NWPT (0% and 14% vs 63.5%, P < 0.0001, odds ratio = 10.7, 95% confidence interval 3.7–35.1). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol decrease NPWT usage days and maintain low SSOs in emergency midline celiotomy incisions.