Ambulatory Surgery Center Research Articles

Comparing the Waste and Environmental Impact of Blepharoplasty at an Office-based Operating Room Versus an Ambulatory Surgery Center in the United States.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the environmental impact of a blepharoplasty as performed by a single surgeon at an office-based operating room (OR) versus at an ambulatory surgery center. We employed life cycle analyses on routine, uncomplicated bilateral upper lid blepharoplasties as performed by a single surgeon. Life cycle phases of production, use, and end-of-life treatment were included. Study boundaries encompassed all waste products exiting the OR in addition to utility energy and water use. We conducted waste audits to collect data on surgical waste by item, material, and weight. Building energy and water use were approximated using data obtained from utility companies. Environmental impact is reported as global warming potential (GW100a; kg carbon dioxide equivalents). The office-based OR generated 784 g of physical waste per blepharoplasty as compared to 1323 g at the ambulatory surgery center. The life cycle analyses found that a blepharoplasty contributed a total of 6.42 kg carbon dioxide equivalents at the office-based OR and 7.78 at the ambulatory surgery center. The production phase contributed the majority of these carbon dioxide equivalents. Plastic supplies contributed the most waste by weight and emissions associated with production. Nonwoven polypropylene contributed the largest waste and emissions by material. The ambulatory surgery center produces more waste and carbon dioxide equivalents per blepharoplasty than the office-based OR. Use of supplies including drapes and gowns made of nonwoven polypropylene can be reduced to increase the environmental sustainability of blepharoplasty.

Establishing and Managing an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Planning, Launching, Operating, and Sustaining Success.

Establishing and Managing an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Planning, Launching, Operating, and Sustaining Success.

Practical Implications of Value Based Care in the Setting of Ambulatory Surgery Center

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are increasingly replacing traditional hospital settings for orthopaedic procedures, driven by advancements in surgical techniques, anesthesia, and enhanced recovery protocols. These innovations enable complex procedures to be performed safely in outpatient settings. ASCs align with value-based care (VBC) principles by offering cost-effective, high-quality, and patient-centered care. This article explores strategies to integrate VBC into ASCs, focusing on operational, financial, and clinical enhancements. This analysis evaluates strategies for preparing ASCs for alternative payment models (APMs) like bundled payments and Accountable Care Organizations. It highlights the importance of standardizing practices, such as lean methodologies and Six Sigma approaches, to improve efficiency and outcomes. Data collection is targeted at actionable metrics, and cost management includes strategies like standardized implant selection and vendor negotiations. Financial alignment through performance-based compensation structures was also assessed. ASCs have demonstrated cost savings of up to 45% compared to hospital outpatient departments, driven by streamlined operations and patient-centric approaches. Adopting APMs fosters improved care coordination and efficiency while aligning financial incentives with clinical outcomes. Standardizing practices, such as implant selection and clinical protocols, has reduced variability, enhanced surgical outcomes, and controlled costs. Performance monitoring using metrics like patient-reported outcome measures and surgical complication rates has facilitated continuous improvement. ASCs represent a significant opportunity to implement VBC principles in orthopaedic surgery. By preparing for APMs, standardizing practices, and leveraging performance data, ASCs can achieve cost savings and improve patient outcomes. Continuous improvement and alignment between financial and clinical goals are essential for ASCs to remain leaders in orthopaedic care delivery. These strategies position ASCs to meet the evolving demands of health care while maintaining high-quality, patient-centered care.

Outpatient Simultaneous Bilateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties: Safe with Positive Patient-Reported Outcomes

BackgroundBilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bUKA) done on the same day (simultaneous) (sbUKA) has been shown to be safe and cost-effective in hospital settings. Given the popularity and increased use of ambulatory surgery centers (ASC), the purpose of this study was to compare safety and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of sbUKA done at the hospital versus ASC. MethodsConsecutive primary sbUKAs over 5 years done by a single surgeon were retrospectively collected. Surgeries were done at a hospital or ASC. Baseline demographics, intraoperative and postoperative results, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-jr) patient-reported outcome scores were collected between the two groups. Groups were compared utilizing Student’s unpaired t-tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. ResultsOf 146 patients (292 knees) who underwent sbUKA, 90 were done at a hospital, and 56 were done at an ASC. Length of stay was longer (53 versus five hours, P < 0.001), and operative time was longer (82 versus 68 minutes, P < 0.001) in the hospital group. In the hospital group, 11 (12.2%) were discharged to subacute rehab (SAR) and nine (10%) returned to the emergency department (ED) within 120 days compared to zero patients in the ASC group (P = 0.007 and 0.015, respectively). There was no significant difference in the final range of motion nor KOOS-jr scores postoperatively. ConclusionOutpatient SbUKA can safely be performed in selected patients. There is no difference in functional outcomes between outpatient and inpatient SbUKA.

Privately negotiated facility fees at ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals.

Private negotiated facility fees at hospitals are on average double the ambulatory surgery center facility fees for common outpatient procedures.

A Cold Winter Day.

Description I am a post-anesthesia care unit nurse who works in a busy ambulatory surgery center, and I consider myself a closet photographer. I love taking photographs of nature. It helps me relax and focus after a busy day. This photograph was taken on my way home on a very cold and snowy day. I found the trees stunning with their white snowy branches contrasting the black asphalt road. Such a peaceful view of nature.

Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Foot and Ankle Fractures in a Freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Center is a Safe, Cost-effective Alternative to a Hospital.

In the United States, the number of pediatric fractures treated in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) continues to increase. Few studies have compared the outcomes and complications of treating these injuries in a freestanding ASC versus in a hospital setting. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes, treatment times, and costs for treatment of pediatric foot and ankle fractures in the ASC and hospital. A retrospective review identified pediatric patients with isolated, closed, and acute (below 3wk) distal tibia, ankle, or foot fractures who underwent closed reduction in an operating room or operative fixation between January 2015 and December 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups: ASC and hospital. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, mechanism of injury, surgical time, facility time, costs for treatment, and complications. Preoperative and postoperative alignment was assessed on radiographs. Clinical outcomes included pain, weight-bearing, or deformity at final follow-up. Multivariable generalized linear models and logistic regression were used to determine the association between surgical setting and treatment outcomes, times, and costs. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were identified; 115 treated in the ASC and 108 treated in the hospital. Adjusted for age at treatment, injury type, procedure performed, and preoperative alignment, there were no differences in surgical time, clinical or radiographic outcomes, or complications between groups. The mean total operating room time, total facility time, and total charges were significantly lower in patients treated in the ASC than in the hospital. Pediatric distal tibia, ankle, and foot fractures can be safely treated in an ASC with equivalent outcomes and complications compared with those in a hospital setting. Benefits include shorter total surgical and facility times as well as decreased cost of care. These findings could allow for patients to receive more timely and efficient treatment with less financial burden. Level III-therapeutic.

The outpatient experience in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: How to perform safely in the ambulatory surgery center

The number of outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures has increased substantially over the last decade. The ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and hospital outpatient department provide a safe, cost-effective alternative with significant cost savings to the healthcare system. Advancements in technology and perioperative management strategies have expanded the number of eligible patients to optimize outcomes with a focus on safety. Therefore, this review will describe the safety, efficacy, economics, and perioperative protocols for performing UKA in an outpatient setting. Patient selection, risk factors, patient education and expectations, anesthesia, pain management strategies, and outcomes will be discussed.

Patient-Level Value Analysis in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Optimizing the Value of Care Delivery

Background: Value is defined as the ratio of patient outcomes to the cost of care. One method to assess value is through patient-level value analysis (PLVA). To our knowledge, this tool has not previously been implemented in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purposes of this study were to perform PLVA for a 1-year episode of care among patients undergoing primary THA and to identify characteristics that affect value in a metropolitan health-care system. Methods: The patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure database of the institution was queried for all primary THAs from 2018 to 2019. The PRO measure that was utilized was the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR). Cost was evaluated with use of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for a 1-year episode of care (consisting of the day of surgery, inpatient stay, discharge facility, postoperative appointments, and physical therapy). The primary outcome was the 1-year value quotient, or the ratio of the 1-year change in HOOS-JR to the cost of the episode of care (VHOOS). The value quotient was compared among all included patients and evaluated for variables that may affect the overall value of the episode of care. Results: In total, 480 patients were included in the analysis. The mean improvement in the HOOS-JR was +34.9 ± 16.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.5, 36.3). The mean cost was $13,835 ± $3,471 (95% CI: $13,524, $14,146). The largest contributor to cost was implants (39.0%), followed by post-recovery care (i.e., inpatient stay and specialized nursing facilities; 24.1%). Change in the HOOS-JR was poorly correlated with the cost of care (r = −0.06; p = 0.19). THAs performed at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) with discharge to home demonstrated higher value (VHOOS = 0.42) than THAs performed at a hospital with discharge to a rehabilitation facility (VHOOS = 0.15; analysis of variance F-test, p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: Our study found that PROs did not correlate with costs in the setting of primary THA. Implants were the largest cost driver. Surgical setting (an ASC versus a hospital) and discharge destination influenced value as well. PLVA is a value measurement tool that can be utilized to optimize components of the care delivery pathway. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Implant Cost Awareness Among Orthopaedic Surgeons at a Single Academic Institution

Introduction Despite the increasing costs of implants, surgeons’ awareness of these costs varies widely. The purpose of this study is to determine baseline awareness of sports-medicine-related implant cost among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods A survey including images of 10 different orthopaedic implants related to sports medicine was sent to 18 surgeons. All included surgeons practice in a single ambulatory surgery center and routinely perform sports-medicine-related procedures. Surgeons were asked to estimate the cost of each implant and answer questions about surgeon characteristics. Cost estimates were compared with implant cost found in the institutional charge master database. Results Cost estimates varied widely among providers regardless of fellowship training. The average percent error among all providers was 54.3%. Surgeons that rated knowledge of implant cost to be important most or all of the time had an average cost estimate error of 60.7% versus 48.0% error in their counterparts that stated that knowledge of cost was important to them only some of the time, though this did not reach statistical significance. Low-cost implants were more likely to be overestimated while high-cost implants were more often underestimated. Years of experience, sports medicine fellowship training, and involvement in contract negotiations had no effect on implant cost accuracy. Conclusion Implant cost awareness is dishearteningly low sports medicine orthopaedists despite the large economic impact of these devices. There is considerable room for improving cost awareness in sports medicine.

Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital Outpatient Versus Ambulatory Surgery Center Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

Retrospective Chart Review. Outpatient spinal surgeries in Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs) have gained traction due to their potential cost efficiencies and improved perioperative processes. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness and patient outcomes of lumbar laminectomies performed in hospital settings vs ASCs. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 771 patients who underwent 1 or 2-level outpatient laminectomy between 2019 and 2023. Patient demographics, 90-day and one-year clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and one-year episode of care costs were evaluated. A one-year cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the EQ-5D to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). ASC patients demonstrated lower body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, with a higher prevalence of 1-level laminectomies compared to hospital patients. ASC-based laminectomy was associated with lower initial surgery cost and one-year episode of care costs ($5662 ± 4748 vs $10229 ± 9202, P < 0.001), with similar rates of complications and postoperative resource utilization. These trends remained after controlling for patient demographics, comorbidities, and number of levels treated. In patients completing baseline and 1-year EQ-5D scores, ASC-based laminectomy was over twice as cost-effective as hospital procedures ($64873/QALY gained vs $152630). The findings support the safety and one-year cost effectiveness of ASCs for appropriately selected patient populations undergoing lumbar laminectomy. Additional studies are needed to replicate these findings across institutions, and to assess the cost effectiveness of ASC-based laminectomy beyond one-year postoperatively.

Critical patient safeguards for ambulatory surgery centers.

The role of ambulatory surgery centers in surgical care is evolving, as lower facility fees and improved patient experience increase the popularity of these venues. As care expands in ambulatory surgery center, so does the complexity of cases and patients cared for in these centers, which may pose a risk for patient safety. Anesthesiologists should lead multidisciplinary teams to screen for appropriate patients and procedures. Patient considerations go beyond physical status and include psychosocial factors. Ensuring patients understand preoperative instructions is crucial to decrease case cancellation rates and facilitate efficiency. Pediatric patients require special considerations including extra attention to preprocedure and postoperative care and instructions, PALS-certified staff, pediatric equipment and medications, as well as heightened awareness of respiratory complications. Procedural concerns start with the capabilities of the facility such as equipment, pharmacy, and staffing for each phase of care. However, nuances such as patient throughput in a given day, emergency preparedness, and after-hours staffing will affect both patient safety and staff morale. This article outlines the issues leaders need to consider to ensure patient safety in ambulatory surgery centers.

Ambulatory surgery center versus outpatient hospitals: a comparison of reimbursements for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Background ContextWhile some studies have demonstrated that ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are associated with reduced costs of orthopedic procedures, there is no consensus in the current literature as to the impact of ASCs versus hospital-based outpatient departments (HOPDs) on anterior cervical discectomies and fusions (ACDFs). PurposeThis study sought to (1) compare immediate procedure reimbursements, patient out-of-pocket expenditures, and surgeon reimbursements for ACDFs performed at ASCs versus HOPDs and (2) identify factors predicting facility utilization. Study DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study. Patient SampleWe identified ACDF procedures performed at an ASC or HOPD in commercially-insured patients aged 18 to 64. Outcome MeasuresPayment variables were calculated from claims within 3 days preoperatively and postoperatively. MethodsMultivariable regression models assessed (1) associations between the surgery setting and payment variables and (2) factors associated with the surgery setting. ResultsWe included 18,191 ACDFs (14.8% ASC, 85.2% HOPD). In multivariable analyses, ACDFs performed in an ASC (versus HOPD) were associated with 9.8% higher immediate procedure reimbursements (95% CI:7.5%–12.2%), 17.2% higher patient out-of-pocket expenditures (95% CI:11.8–22.8), and 11.7% higher surgeon reimbursements (95% CI:9.18–14.2; all p<.01) (all p<.001). Surgery setting utilization varied by region, insurance-related factors, comorbidities, and procedural complexity. ConclusionsWe found that ASCs had significantly higher reimbursements compared to HOPDs. Regional variations in ASC utilization imply there are opportunities for standardization of care. Level of evidence3.

Reply to Editorial Comment on “Safety and Efficacy of Same-day Discharge for Men Undergoing Contemporary Robotic-assisted Aquablation Prostate Surgery in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting—First Global Experience”

Reply to Editorial Comment on “Safety and Efficacy of Same-day Discharge for Men Undergoing Contemporary Robotic-assisted Aquablation Prostate Surgery in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting—First Global Experience”

Editorial Comment on "Safety and Efficacy of Same Day Discharge for Men Undergoing Contemporary Robotic-Assisted Aquablation Prostate Surgery in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting - First Global Experience"

Editorial Comment on "Safety and Efficacy of Same Day Discharge for Men Undergoing Contemporary Robotic-Assisted Aquablation Prostate Surgery in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting - First Global Experience"

Posterior Cruciate Ligament Preservation versus Posterior Cruciate Ligament Sacrifice: Comparing Patient Outcomes in Medial Congruent Total Knee Arthroplasty.

This study aimed to compare outcomes and complication rates between posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retention and excision utilizing a medial congruent (MC) polyethylene insert in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a specialized ambulatory surgery center (ASC) dedicated to hip and knee arthroplasty. A retrospective review was performed between May 2023 and October 2023 analyzing 398 patients who underwent primary MC TKA by high-volume joint arthroplasty surgeons (n = 9) with either PCL preservation (n = 264) or sacrifice (n = 134) in a single free-standing ASC. Patients were matched chronologically on a 2:1 basis. Demographics, baseline function, 90-day complications, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for each patient. There were no differences in preoperative baseline function or patient-reported outcome measures, Charlson Comorbidity Index, or American Society of Anesthesiologists class among patient groups. The PCL-preserve and PCL-sacrifice cohorts showed significant variation in 12-week postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome, Junior (KOOS, JR.) scores. Specifically, the number of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in KOOS, JR. scores was higher in the PCL-sacrifice group (p < 0.05). Yet, no complications within the 90-day period were associated with PCL status and other patient-reported outcomes. This study comparing outcomes between MC TKAs with PCL retention and sacrifice suggests that both techniques are viable options with similar functional outcomes, pain scores, and complication rates, which may have benefits in an ASC setting. The PCL-sacrifice group exhibited a statistically significant increase in patients who achieved the MCID in KOOS, JR. score compared with the PCL-preserving at early follow-up. Future research should employ prospective, randomized designs to further validate these findings and explore long-term implications.

Routine preoperative assessment for cataract surgery is a source of frustration for primary care providers

BackgroundCataract surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in older adults in the United States and is generally considered to be extremely low-risk. As of 2019, routine preoperative evaluation within 30 days of surgery is no longer mandated by the United States of America (USA) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for ambulatory surgery centers, but it is unclear how primary care providers perceive this change.MethodsWe performed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with six primary care providers to explore primary care providers’ perspectives on routine preoperative assessment for cataract surgery.ResultsPrimary care providers commented on the large number of referrals they receive for preoperative assessment before cataract procedures. The analysis revealed an overarching sentiment of resentment over the time, effort, and resources expended on these assessments. Themes included the lack of awareness of the updated regulations that no longer require a history and physical to be completed within 30 days and the perception of a universal lack of medical necessity to perform preoperative assessment for cataract surgery. Providers also commented on the strain on limited resources and the burden on patients. The relationship between specialties and professional roles emerged as another important theme.ConclusionsReferrals for preoperative clearance for cataract surgery continue to burden providers, patients, and the health system, and represent an opportunity to streamline care in this patient population.

Can a New, Satellite Inpatient Hospital Maintain the Efficiency of an Ambulatory Surgery Center with No Difference in Patient-reported Outcomes? A Prospective Study

BackgroundPrevious research has found that anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are more time-efficient. However, recent literature investigating this phenomenon within the pediatric population is limited and primarily retrospective. The goal of this study was to prospectively compare the operating room (OR) efficiency of pediatric ACL reconstructions performed across different surgical settings. MethodsAdolescent patients (12–18 years) undergoing ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon were prospectively enrolled from 2020 to 2024. Patients were cohorted based on the location of their surgery at one of three sites: 1) a traditional, tertiary care academic hospital, 2) hospital-owned ASCs, or 3) a satellite inpatient hospital that was built and connected to an ASC in January 2022. Patient preoperative, surgical, and postoperative data were collected, and surgical efficiency was compared across surgical sites using a variety of metrics. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were collected using the Pedi-FABS and Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaires. ResultsA total of 115 patients (56.5% female, mean age: 15.4 ​± ​1.7 years) met inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Thirty-one patients (27.0%) had ACL reconstructions at the main inpatient hospital, 36 (31.3%) at hospital-owned ASCs, and 48 (41.7%) at the new satellite inpatient hospital. When controlling for concomitant procedures, regional anesthesia type, and staff, there was a significant difference in total OR in-room, anesthesia induction, surgery preparation, surgery duration, and dressing application/wake-up times among the three cohorts (P ​< ​.001). Both the ASCs and the satellite inpatient hospital had shorter total OR in-room and surgery duration times than the main inpatient hospital (P ​< ​.001). There were no differences in PROMs among the three cohorts (P ​> ​.05). ConclusionsAdolescent ACL reconstructions performed at either an ASC or a satellite inpatient hospital were more time-efficient than those performed at a traditional, main inpatient hospital, with no differences in PROMs. Institutions should consider implementing strategies used at ASCs, such as standardized surgical teams, at main hospitals to increase efficiency. Key Concepts(1)A satellite inpatient hospital and ambulatory surgery centers are more time-efficient for adolescent ACL reconstruction than a main, inpatient hospital.(2)There were no differences in patient-reported functional outcomes after adolescent ACL reconstruction among ASCs, a main inpatient hospital, and a satellite inpatient hospital.(3)A satellite inpatient hospital can be as efficient as an ASC, with no significant difference in quality. Level of EvidenceII (Prospective Cohort Study)

LEAN Methodology to Improve Endoscopy Unit Efficiency in a Multi-subspecialty Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Pilot Study.

Background and objective Efforts to improve gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy unit efficiency may lead to increases in colon cancer screening volumes. LEAN management principles applied to GI endoscopy unit practices may serve as a novel foundation for efficiency improvements.We conducted apilot study in an outpatient, hospital-based GI endoscopy unit with the goal of improving endoscopy efficiency by using LEAN principles Methodology A single endoscopist and anesthesiologist along with the nursing care team implemented changes to their practice based on LEAN principles. Efficiency metrics were tracked before these changes and after to assess for improvements. Results We observed statistically significant improvements in waiting room time (13.1 minutes vs. 25.6 minutes, p<0.001), recovery room duration (55.5 minutes vs. 61.8 minutes, p=0.01), total facility time (172.5 minutes vs. 196.1 minutes, p<0.001), and true completion time (19.7 minutes vs. 32.3 minutes, p=0.002) after the implementation of LEAN interventions. Conclusions A systematic and standardized approach using LEAN methodology canimprove GI endoscopy unit operational efficiency. Larger studies are needed to validate our findings and generalize the results to the field broadly.

Evaluation of prepectoral reconstruction surgical outcomes: Main operating room vs ambulatory surgery center

IntroductionDuring the height of the recent Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, many surgeries were transitioned to ambulatory surgery centers to reserve inpatient resources and reduce transmission risks. Our study evaluated surgical outcomes of patients who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction in the operating rooms of two full-service main hospitals versus their associated surgery centers. MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction at a single hospital between 2018 and 2022. Eligible patients had at least 3 months of post-expander follow-up, with the majority also having 3 months of post-implant follow-up. Patient demographics, reconstructive characteristics, post-expander outcomes, and post-implant outcomes were evaluated between the surgery center and main operating room with Chi-square (or Fisher’s exact) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. ResultsThis study included 301 patients, outcomes of 509 post-expander breasts, and outcomes of 410 post-implant breasts. The patient characteristics were similar with the only significant difference being the hospital length of stay (increased stay at the main hospital). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the surgical outcomes between the two groups in the post-expander or post-implant period. ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted elective procedures, prompting a shift towards outpatient surgery to optimize hospital resources and reduce inpatient exposure risks. While breast reconstruction is elective, delays can pose risks for cancer patients. Our results show that surgical outcomes for prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction remain consistent whether performed in outpatient surgical centers or main hospitals.