Improvement In Operative Time Research Articles

Rapid Communication:Small Changes in Operative Time Can Yield Discrete Increases in Operating Room Throughput

Operating room throughput is influenced by the efficiency of the perioperative process (for nonoperative time) and by the surgeon (for operative time). Operative time is thought not to be easily amenable to deliberate reductions. We tested the hypothesis that gradual improvements in operative time had allowed one surgeon to perform additional cases during scheduled hours. The surgeon had been working in both a high-throughput and a conventional operating room for more than 1 year prior to the study. During the studied interval, we applied statistical process control analysis to time data for the surgeon performing full days of complex laparoscopic operations. Separate analyses were conducted for the conventional and high-throughput operating rooms. The average operative time for each day and the number of cases per day were plotted against sequential days for each environment. Midway through the studied interval, there was a discrete 17-minute drop in operative time in both the high-throughput and the conventional environment. Throughput increased from two cases per day to three per day in the high-throughput environment. The average end time for the three-case days was 17:15 (range 16:04-18:32). Longer average operative and nonoperative times in the conventional rooms precluded performing three complex cases during regular work hours. There was a sudden, rather than a gradual, reduction of operative time leading to extra cases being performed. This coincided with (1) the surgeon being assigned a new fellow and (2) administrative commitment to finish three cases per day. Our original hypothesis was negated, but other controllable causes for changes in surgical throughput were identified.

Thirty robotic adrenalectomies

Robotic adrenalectomy is a minimally invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopic adrenalectomy. To date, only case reports and small series of robotic adrenalectomies have been reported. This study presents a single institution's series of 30 robotic adrenalectomies, and evaluates the procedure's safety, efficacy, and cost. Thirty patients underwent robotic adrenalectomy at the Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 2001 and January 2004. Patient morbidity, hospital length of stay, operative time, and conversion rate to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery are presented. Improvement in operative time with surgeon experience is evaluated. Hospital charges are compared to charges for traditional laparoscopic and open adrenalectomies performed during the same time period. Median operative time was 185 min. Patient morbidity was 7%. There were no conversions to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery. The median hospital stay was 2 days. Operative time improved significantly by 3 min with each operation. Hospital charges for robotic adrenalectomy (12,977 dollars) were not significantly different than charges for traditional laparoscopic (11,599 dollars) or open adrenalectomy (14,600 dollars). Robotic adrenalectomy is a safe and effective alternative to traditional laparoscopic adrenalectomy.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: defining the learning curve.

Increasing numbers of laparoscopic surgeons are performing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LGB). Our aim was to determine the length of the learning curve for a skilled laparoscopic surgeon. The study population consisted of the first 225 consecutive LGB procedures attempted by one laparoscopic surgeon (HJS). Outcome parameters included mortality, morbidity, operative time, and conversion to an open procedure. Average operative time decreased from 189 min (first 75 patients) to 125 minutes (last 75 patients). Most of the improvement in operative time occurred over the first 75 patients. The perioperative complication rate decreased from 32% (first 75 patients) to 15% (second and third groups of 75 patients). Complication rates did not significantly decrease after the first 75 patients. Low mortality and conversion rates were achieved early in the series. Low mortality rates and low conversion rates can be achieved early in the learning curve for LGB. Complication rates plateau after approximately 75 LGBs, and operative times decrease substantially over the initial 75 cases. Operative times continue to decrease at a slower rate beyond 75 cases.

PROSPECTIVE, CASE MATCHED COMPARISON OF HAND ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN SURGICAL LIVE DONOR NEPHRECTOMY

The technical difficulty of standard laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has limited its application. Hand assistance, which takes advantage of the incision necessary for organ removal, facilitates laparoscopy without significant impact on patient recovery. We prospectively compared open surgical and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Our first 10 laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies were matched with 40 open donor nephrectomies by gender, age and body mass index. Data were obtained by pain scales, SF-12 survey instruments, questionnaires and chart abstraction. Operative time was longer for the laparoscopic approach (mean 95 versus 215 minutes). However, laparoscopic group patients had a shorter hospital stay compared to those undergoing open surgery (mean 2.9 versus 1.8 days), returned sooner to nonstrenuous activity (mean 19.0 versus 9.9 days) and reported less pain 6 weeks postoperatively (mean 2.3 versus 0.6) (p </=0.03 for all). There were no differences between groups in terms of donor complications, allograft function and ureteral complications. Mean hospital cost was 23% greater in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.005) but global cost, which accounted for estimated loss of income from work during the recovery period, was only 15% greater (p = 0.10). Mean operative time was significantly improved for our second compared to our first 5 laparoscopic group patients (177 versus 254 minutes). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy appears to be a safe and effective alternative to open donor nephrectomy. Indexes of patient recovery suggest patient morbidity similar to that reported following standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and significantly less than after open nephrectomy. Improvement in operative time in the first 10 cases suggests that hand assistance "shortens" the learning curve, which might encourage more surgeons to offer laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Arthroscopic versus open bankart procedures: A comparison of early morbidity and complications

Morgan recently reported excellent results by arthroscopically suturing detached labra to the glenoid via drill holes in anterior shoulder dislocators. We attempted to quantitatively compare the operative time, and perioperative morbidity employing this technique to these same parameters using the open Bankart procedure. We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients undergoing either of these procedures at our institution over the past 2 years. Only those cases wherein the labra were reattached to the glenoid via drill holes were considered. There were 20 patients in the arthroscopic and 18 in the open Bankart groups. Using the arthroscopic method, there was a 1.8-fold decrease in operative time, a 10-fold decrease in blood loss, and a 2.5-fold decrease in postoperative narcotic use compared with the open procedure (p < 0.001). Postoperative fevers were similarly reduced. Hospital stay averaged 3.1 days with the open procedure compared with 1.1 days with the arthroscopic method (p < 0.001). Most arthroscopic Bankarts are now performed on a same-day basis. Time lost from work was 25.5 and 15.3 days for the open and arthroscopic procedures, respectively (p < 0.001). There were three complications among the patients treated with the open technique compared with none in the arthroscopic group. Thus, we conclude that the arthroscopic Bankart procedure offers significant improvements in operative time, perioperative morbidity, and complications compared with the open technique for patients with anterior shoulder instability.