Assessing Public-Reported Perceptions of Low-Risk Hand Surgery Provided in the Office Versus an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Survey Study

{"title":"Assessing Public-Reported Perceptions of Low-Risk Hand Surgery Provided in the Office Versus an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Survey Study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>There is growing evidence for the safety of wide-awake, office-based, low-risk hand surgery. However, there is limited insight into patient receptiveness to these procedures. Here, we evaluate the public perceptions and degree of tolerance of low-risk, office-based hand surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A prospective study was performed using a 26-question, paid survey via a clinically validated, public, online marketplace. Participants were divided based on (pre-education) perceptions of in-office hand surgery into three cohorts as follows: in-office surgery (IOS), no in-office surgery, or no preference (NP). Educational material was then presented comparing three surgical settings and anesthetic types. Then, participants selected their setting/anesthetic preferences for the following four procedures: trigger finger release, cyst excision, carpal tunnel release, and distal radius fracture. Statistical analyses with unpaired <em>t</em> tests and chi-square tests were performed. <em>P</em> &lt; .05 was significant.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 509 respondents—266 in the IOS group, 104 in the no in-office surgery group, and 139 in the NP group. Previous outpatient surgery was most frequent in the IOS cohort. In-office surgery and NP cohorts were more likely to believe that surgical procedures could be performed in the clinic setting. The remaining demographics were similar across cohorts. After reviewing the education graphic, 50 of the 139 in the NP group switched to prefer IOS. For procedure-specific questioning, 40.6% (207/509) were amenable to in-office trigger finger release and 58.3% (297/509) for cyst excision, unlike more invasive procedures (carpal tunnel release: 25.6% (130/509); distal radius fracture: 9.8% (50/509). The most influential factors determining surgical location were comfort during the procedure and total encounter time. The IOS group favored location to be at the surgeon’s discretion more than the no in-office surgery group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In-office, low-risk, hand surgery appears desirable to select patients. If presented with the option for in-office trigger finger release or cyst excision, approximately 40.6% (207/509) and 58.3% (297/509), respectively, may be amenable to IOS.</p></div><div><h3>Type of study/level of evidence</h3><p>Prospective IB.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","volume":"6 5","pages":"Pages 619-626"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124001051/pdfft?md5=9736fe5ef9c69642543810d29bb05f10&pid=1-s2.0-S2589514124001051-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124001051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

There is growing evidence for the safety of wide-awake, office-based, low-risk hand surgery. However, there is limited insight into patient receptiveness to these procedures. Here, we evaluate the public perceptions and degree of tolerance of low-risk, office-based hand surgery.

Methods

A prospective study was performed using a 26-question, paid survey via a clinically validated, public, online marketplace. Participants were divided based on (pre-education) perceptions of in-office hand surgery into three cohorts as follows: in-office surgery (IOS), no in-office surgery, or no preference (NP). Educational material was then presented comparing three surgical settings and anesthetic types. Then, participants selected their setting/anesthetic preferences for the following four procedures: trigger finger release, cyst excision, carpal tunnel release, and distal radius fracture. Statistical analyses with unpaired t tests and chi-square tests were performed. P < .05 was significant.

Results

There were 509 respondents—266 in the IOS group, 104 in the no in-office surgery group, and 139 in the NP group. Previous outpatient surgery was most frequent in the IOS cohort. In-office surgery and NP cohorts were more likely to believe that surgical procedures could be performed in the clinic setting. The remaining demographics were similar across cohorts. After reviewing the education graphic, 50 of the 139 in the NP group switched to prefer IOS. For procedure-specific questioning, 40.6% (207/509) were amenable to in-office trigger finger release and 58.3% (297/509) for cyst excision, unlike more invasive procedures (carpal tunnel release: 25.6% (130/509); distal radius fracture: 9.8% (50/509). The most influential factors determining surgical location were comfort during the procedure and total encounter time. The IOS group favored location to be at the surgeon’s discretion more than the no in-office surgery group.

Conclusions

In-office, low-risk, hand surgery appears desirable to select patients. If presented with the option for in-office trigger finger release or cyst excision, approximately 40.6% (207/509) and 58.3% (297/509), respectively, may be amenable to IOS.

Type of study/level of evidence

Prospective IB.

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
评估公众对办公室提供的低风险手部手术和非住院手术中心的看法:调查研究
目的有越来越多的证据表明,在诊室进行清醒、低风险的手部手术是安全的。然而,人们对患者接受这些手术的程度了解有限。在此,我们评估了公众对办公室低风险手部手术的看法和接受程度。方法我们通过一个经过临床验证的公共在线市场进行了一项前瞻性研究,使用了 26 个问题的付费调查。参与者根据(教育前)对诊室手部手术的看法被分为以下三组:诊室手术(IOS)、无诊室手术或无偏好(NP)。然后,向参与者展示了比较三种手术环境和麻醉类型的教育材料。然后,参与者就以下四种手术选择自己喜欢的手术环境/麻醉方式:扳机指松解术、囊肿切除术、腕管松解术和桡骨远端骨折。采用非配对 t 检验和卡方检验进行统计分析。结果共有 509 名受访者,其中 IOS 组有 266 人,无门诊手术组有 104 人,NP 组有 139 人。在 IOS 组中,曾在门诊接受过手术的人最多。诊室手术组和 NP 组更倾向于认为外科手术可以在诊所环境中进行。各组别的其他人口统计学特征相似。在查看教育图表后,护士组的 139 人中有 50 人转而倾向于选择 IOS。在针对具体手术的提问中,40.6%(207/509)的受访者表示可以在诊室内进行扳机指松解术,58.3%(297/509)的受访者表示可以进行囊肿切除术,这与更具创伤性的手术(腕管松解术,25.6%(130/509))不同:腕管松解术:25.6%(130/509);桡骨远端骨折:9.8%(50/509)。决定手术位置的最大影响因素是手术过程中的舒适度和总的手术时间。与不进行诊室内手术组相比,诊室内手术组更倾向于由外科医生决定手术位置。如果可以选择在诊室内进行扳机指松解术或囊肿切除术,分别有约 40.6% (207/509)和 58.3% (297/509)的患者适合接受 IOS。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Scaphoid Fractures and Nonunion: A Survey-based Review of Hand Surgeon’s Practice and the Evidence Hook of Hamate Regrowth After Surgical Excision: A Report of Two Cases Possible Bupivacaine Induced Hepatitis Following Wide Awake, Local Anesthesia, No Tourniquet Carpal Tunnel Surgery: A Case Report Digital Papillary Adenocarcinoma: A Case Presentation and Literature Review
×
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