独家虚拟术前评估对妇科手术并发症的影响。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012
Rebecca J Schneyer, Raanan Meyer, Kacey M Hamilton, Mireille D Truong, Kelly N Wright, Matthew T Siedhoff
{"title":"独家虚拟术前评估对妇科手术并发症的影响。","authors":"Rebecca J Schneyer, Raanan Meyer, Kacey M Hamilton, Mireille D Truong, Kelly N Wright, Matthew T Siedhoff","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of virtual versus in-person preoperative evaluation on perioperative complication rates in a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Quaternary care academic hospital in the United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients who underwent surgery with a MIGS surgeon between January 2016 and May 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients underwent either in-person or virtual preoperative visits (defined as the initial consultation and any subsequent follow-up or preoperative counseling visits). Those who had both an in-person and virtual preoperative visit were excluded. Complication rates among the virtual and in-person cohorts were compared, and logistic regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 2,947 patients, 1196 (40.6%) with exclusively virtual preoperative visits and 1751 (59.4%) with exclusively in-person visits. Following the implementation of telemedicine in 3/2020, 80.6% of patients had all their preoperative visits conducted virtually via videoconference. Surgical approach included conventional laparoscopy (78.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (3.8%), laparotomy (2.1%), and other gynecologic procedures without abdominal entry (15.3%). The most common procedures were endometriosis excision (43.1%), myomectomy (34.0%), and hysterectomy (24.8%). Composite perioperative complication rates were similar between cohorts (5.9% virtual vs 6.3% in-person, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.17). There were no significant differences for major complications (2.3% virtual vs 1.2% in-person, aOR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85-2.74) or minor complications (5.7% virtual vs 6.1% in-person, aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.19). Conversion to laparotomy was rare in both groups (0.1% virtual vs 0.2% in-person).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation of virtual preoperative visits within a MIGS practice did not impact composite surgical complication rates. For subspecialized gynecologic surgeons, a virtual preoperative evaluation may offer a safe alternative to the traditional in-person visit.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Exclusively Virtual Preoperative Evaluation on Complications of Gynecologic Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca J Schneyer, Raanan Meyer, Kacey M Hamilton, Mireille D Truong, Kelly N Wright, Matthew T Siedhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of virtual versus in-person preoperative evaluation on perioperative complication rates in a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Quaternary care academic hospital in the United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients who underwent surgery with a MIGS surgeon between January 2016 and May 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients underwent either in-person or virtual preoperative visits (defined as the initial consultation and any subsequent follow-up or preoperative counseling visits). Those who had both an in-person and virtual preoperative visit were excluded. Complication rates among the virtual and in-person cohorts were compared, and logistic regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 2,947 patients, 1196 (40.6%) with exclusively virtual preoperative visits and 1751 (59.4%) with exclusively in-person visits. Following the implementation of telemedicine in 3/2020, 80.6% of patients had all their preoperative visits conducted virtually via videoconference. Surgical approach included conventional laparoscopy (78.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (3.8%), laparotomy (2.1%), and other gynecologic procedures without abdominal entry (15.3%). The most common procedures were endometriosis excision (43.1%), myomectomy (34.0%), and hysterectomy (24.8%). Composite perioperative complication rates were similar between cohorts (5.9% virtual vs 6.3% in-person, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.17). There were no significant differences for major complications (2.3% virtual vs 1.2% in-person, aOR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85-2.74) or minor complications (5.7% virtual vs 6.1% in-person, aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.19). Conversion to laparotomy was rare in both groups (0.1% virtual vs 0.2% in-person).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation of virtual preoperative visits within a MIGS practice did not impact composite surgical complication rates. For subspecialized gynecologic surgeons, a virtual preoperative evaluation may offer a safe alternative to the traditional in-person visit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的:评估虚拟与面对面的术前评估对微创妇科手术(MIGS)围手术期并发症发生率的影响。设计:回顾性队列研究。背景:美国四级医疗学术医院。参与者:2016年1月至2023年5月期间接受MIGS外科医生手术的患者。干预措施:患者接受面对面或虚拟术前访问(定义为初始咨询和任何后续随访或术前咨询访问)。同时进行面对面和虚拟术前访问的患者被排除在外。比较虚拟队列和现场队列的并发症发生率,并进行逻辑回归以调整潜在的混杂因素。结果:分析包括2947例患者,1196例(40.6%)患者进行完全虚拟术前就诊,1751例(59.4%)患者进行完全面对面就诊。自2020年3月实施远程医疗以来,80.6%的患者通过视频会议进行了所有术前访问。手术方式包括常规腹腔镜(78.8%)、机器人辅助腹腔镜(3.8%)、剖腹手术(2.1%)和其他不经腹部进入的妇科手术(15.3%)。最常见的手术是子宫内膜异位症切除术(43.1%)、子宫肌瘤切除术(34.0%)和子宫切除术(24.8%)。队列间围手术期综合并发症发生率相似(虚拟5.9% vs.面对面6.3%,调整优势比[aOR] 0.83, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.58-1.17)。主要并发症(2.3%虚拟vs. 1.2%面对面,aOR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85-2.74)或轻微并发症(5.7%虚拟vs. 6.1%面对面,aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.19)无显著差异。两组转换为剖腹手术的情况都很少见(0.1%虚拟vs. 0.2%面对面)。结论:在MIGS实践中实施虚拟术前访问不会影响复合手术并发症的发生率。对于亚专科妇科外科医生,虚拟术前评估可以提供一个安全的替代传统的亲自访问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Impact of Exclusively Virtual Preoperative Evaluation on Complications of Gynecologic Surgery.

Study objective: To evaluate the impact of virtual versus in-person preoperative evaluation on perioperative complication rates in a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) practice.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Quaternary care academic hospital in the United States.

Participants: Patients who underwent surgery with a MIGS surgeon between January 2016 and May 2023.

Interventions: Patients underwent either in-person or virtual preoperative visits (defined as the initial consultation and any subsequent follow-up or preoperative counseling visits). Those who had both an in-person and virtual preoperative visit were excluded. Complication rates among the virtual and in-person cohorts were compared, and logistic regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders.

Results: The analysis included 2,947 patients, 1196 (40.6%) with exclusively virtual preoperative visits and 1751 (59.4%) with exclusively in-person visits. Following the implementation of telemedicine in 3/2020, 80.6% of patients had all their preoperative visits conducted virtually via videoconference. Surgical approach included conventional laparoscopy (78.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (3.8%), laparotomy (2.1%), and other gynecologic procedures without abdominal entry (15.3%). The most common procedures were endometriosis excision (43.1%), myomectomy (34.0%), and hysterectomy (24.8%). Composite perioperative complication rates were similar between cohorts (5.9% virtual vs 6.3% in-person, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.17). There were no significant differences for major complications (2.3% virtual vs 1.2% in-person, aOR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85-2.74) or minor complications (5.7% virtual vs 6.1% in-person, aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.19). Conversion to laparotomy was rare in both groups (0.1% virtual vs 0.2% in-person).

Conclusion: Implementation of virtual preoperative visits within a MIGS practice did not impact composite surgical complication rates. For subspecialized gynecologic surgeons, a virtual preoperative evaluation may offer a safe alternative to the traditional in-person visit.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Preoperative Medication for Ovarian Endometrioma Reduces Cyst Size and PainBut Not rASRM score. Time for an education revamp? A nationwide survey of Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery program directors' and fellows' didactics experiences. Presidential address presented at the 53rd AAGL Global Congress in New Orleans on the 17th of November 2024. Vaginal assisted NOTES hysterectomy for large uterus using the da Vinci SP. Deep endometriosis: beware of the tip of the iceberg.
×
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