Results From Complex Abdominal Reconstruction at Non-Academic Institution can Favorably Compare to Major Academic Centers: An Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database Review.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY American Surgeon Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1177/00031348241248810
Sarah Katchen, Katherine Scribner, Alfredo Carbonell, Brian Ondulick, Christopher Schneider
{"title":"Results From Complex Abdominal Reconstruction at Non-Academic Institution can Favorably Compare to Major Academic Centers: An Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database Review.","authors":"Sarah Katchen, Katherine Scribner, Alfredo Carbonell, Brian Ondulick, Christopher Schneider","doi":"10.1177/00031348241248810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many complex abdominal hernias are referred to tertiary academic institutions for evaluation and treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes from complex abdominal hernia repairs and abdominal wall reconstructions at a community hospital vs high volume academic centers participating in Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing elective complex abdominal hernia repair were identified in our community setting and treated between 2016 and 2019. These results were then compared to Academic centers in the ACHQC database. Complex hernia definition was limited to those who have undergone any myofascial advancement procedure for homogeneity. Informed consent was obtained, and study was IRB approved. All data was de-identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 180 patients underwent complex abdominal hernia repair at our community hospital. The ACHQC database identified 6299 patients meeting criteria at participating academic centers. Demographics were similar between the two groups including hernia grade, size and wound class. Academic centers tended to have patients with previous component separations (25.7% vs 10.6%) and immunosuppressed (7.2% vs 2.8%), while the community hospital patients included more patients with tobacco use (18.9% vs 12.1%) and hypertension (65% vs 54.9%). Operative times were significantly less at the community hospital, patients requiring >240 minutes of time for repair at academic centers (39.6% vs 5%). Postoperatively length of stay was significantly shorter at the community hospital group averaging 3.7 days vs academic centers of 6 days (<i>P</i> < .05). Although overall complications were less in the community hospital group (26.5% vs 19.4%). Readmission within 30 days was nearly twice as frequent in the community hospital group (14.4% vs 7.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Community hospitals can provide comparable care and surgical expertise as major academic centers in regard to complex hernias in a large majority of cases. There is a need for dedicated care coordination and continuous review of supporting staff and outcomes is necessary to assure quality care. There is still a need to identify which patients would benefit from treatment at an academic center as opposed to a community hospital in order to maximize patient access and outcomes at both types of hospital setting. Further investigation needs to be performed regarding criteria for which patients should be transferred to academic centers for their complex hernia care. Identifying patients who would benefit from treatment at Academic Centers as opposed to Community hospitals should continue to be investigated.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"3008-3014"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241248810","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many complex abdominal hernias are referred to tertiary academic institutions for evaluation and treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes from complex abdominal hernia repairs and abdominal wall reconstructions at a community hospital vs high volume academic centers participating in Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC).

Methods: Patients undergoing elective complex abdominal hernia repair were identified in our community setting and treated between 2016 and 2019. These results were then compared to Academic centers in the ACHQC database. Complex hernia definition was limited to those who have undergone any myofascial advancement procedure for homogeneity. Informed consent was obtained, and study was IRB approved. All data was de-identified.

Results: A total of 180 patients underwent complex abdominal hernia repair at our community hospital. The ACHQC database identified 6299 patients meeting criteria at participating academic centers. Demographics were similar between the two groups including hernia grade, size and wound class. Academic centers tended to have patients with previous component separations (25.7% vs 10.6%) and immunosuppressed (7.2% vs 2.8%), while the community hospital patients included more patients with tobacco use (18.9% vs 12.1%) and hypertension (65% vs 54.9%). Operative times were significantly less at the community hospital, patients requiring >240 minutes of time for repair at academic centers (39.6% vs 5%). Postoperatively length of stay was significantly shorter at the community hospital group averaging 3.7 days vs academic centers of 6 days (P < .05). Although overall complications were less in the community hospital group (26.5% vs 19.4%). Readmission within 30 days was nearly twice as frequent in the community hospital group (14.4% vs 7.7%).

Conclusion: Community hospitals can provide comparable care and surgical expertise as major academic centers in regard to complex hernias in a large majority of cases. There is a need for dedicated care coordination and continuous review of supporting staff and outcomes is necessary to assure quality care. There is still a need to identify which patients would benefit from treatment at an academic center as opposed to a community hospital in order to maximize patient access and outcomes at both types of hospital setting. Further investigation needs to be performed regarding criteria for which patients should be transferred to academic centers for their complex hernia care. Identifying patients who would benefit from treatment at Academic Centers as opposed to Community hospitals should continue to be investigated.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非学术机构的复杂腹部重建结果可与主要学术中心相比:腹部核心健康质量合作数据库回顾。
背景:许多复杂的腹部疝气被转诊到三级学术机构进行评估和治疗。本研究旨在比较社区医院与参与腹部核心健康质量协作(ACHQC)的高容量学术中心的复杂腹部疝修补术和腹壁重建术的临床结果:在我们的社区环境中确定了接受择期复杂腹股沟疝修补术的患者,并在 2016 年至 2019 年期间进行了治疗。然后将这些结果与 ACHQC 数据库中的学术中心进行比较。复杂疝的定义仅限于接受过任何肌筋膜推进术的患者,以确保同质性。研究获得了知情同意,并通过了 IRB 批准。所有数据均已去标识化:结果:共有 180 名患者在我们的社区医院接受了复杂腹股沟疝修补术。ACHQC数据库确定了6299名符合参与学术中心标准的患者。两组患者的人口统计学特征相似,包括疝气等级、大小和伤口等级。学术中心的患者多曾有过疝气分离手术(25.7% 对 10.6%)和免疫抑制(7.2% 对 2.8%),而社区医院的患者中吸烟(18.9% 对 12.1%)和高血压(65% 对 54.9%)患者较多。社区医院的手术时间明显更短,而学术中心的患者需要超过 240 分钟的修复时间(39.6% 对 5%)。社区医院组的术后住院时间明显较短,平均为 3.7 天,而学术中心为 6 天(P < .05)。社区医院组的总体并发症较少(26.5% 对 19.4%)。社区医院组 30 天内再次入院的比例几乎是学术中心的两倍(14.4% 对 7.7%):结论:对于大多数复杂疝气病例,社区医院可以提供与大型学术中心相当的护理和手术专业技术。有必要进行专门的护理协调,并对支持人员和结果进行持续审查,以确保护理质量。目前仍有必要确定哪些患者可以从学术中心而非社区医院的治疗中获益,以便在两种医院环境中最大限度地提高患者的就诊率和治疗效果。还需要进一步研究哪些患者应转入学术中心接受复杂疝气治疗的标准。应继续研究确定哪些患者可从学术中心而非社区医院的治疗中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
期刊最新文献
Plain Chest Film Versus Computed Tomography of the Chest as the Initial Imaging Modality for Blunt Thoracic Injury. A Novel Taxonomy of Intraoperative Cholangiograms in Suspected Choledocholithiasis: A Tool for Advancing Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Outcomes Research. Early Vasopressor Requirement Among Hypotensive Trauma Patients: Does It Cause More Harm Than Good? The Other Patient. Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Strategy of Mirizzi's Syndrome Treated With Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1