Quality measures in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery.

SOURCE

We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b).

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

Performance of Perioperative Tasks for Women Undergoing Anti-incontinence Surgery: Developed by the AUGS Quality Improvement and Outcomes Research Network

OBJECTIVES

Surgery for the correction of stress urinary incontinence is an elective procedure that can have a dramatic and positive impact on quality of life. Anti-incontinence procedures, like inguinal hernia repairs or cholecystectomies, can be classified as high-volume/low-morbidity procedures. The performance of a standard set of perioperative tasks has been suggested as one way to optimize quality of care in elective high-volume/low-morbidity procedures. Our primary objective was to evaluate the performance of 5 perioperative tasks-(1) offering nonsurgical treatment, (2) performance of a standard preoperative prolapse examination, (3) cough stress test, (4) postvoid residual test, and (5) intraoperative cystoscopy for women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence-compared among surgeons with and without board certification in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS).

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a retrospective chart review of anti-incontinence surgical procedures performed between 2011 and 2013 at 9 health systems. Cases were reviewed for surgical volume, adverse outcomes, and the performance of 5 perioperative tasks and compared between surgeons with and without FPMRS certification.

RESULTS

Non-FPMRS surgeons performed fewer anti-incontinence procedures than FPMRS-certified surgeons. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery surgeons were more likely to perform all 5 perioperative tasks compared with non-FPMRS surgeons. After propensity matching, FPMRS surgeons had fewer patients readmitted within 30 days of surgery compared with non-FPMRS surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery surgeons performed higher volumes of anti-incontinence procedures, were more likely to document the performance of the 5 perioperative tasks, and were less likely to have their patients readmitted within 30 days.

At least ninety days of follow-up are required to adequately detect wound outcomes after open incisional hernia repair

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia repair (IHR) carries a high risk of wound complications. Thirty-day outcomes are frequently used in comparative-effectiveness research, but may miss a substantial number of surgical site occurrences (SSO) including surgical site infection (SSI). The objective of this study was to determine an optimal length of follow-up to detect SSI after IHR.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing open IHR at a single academic center over a 3 year period were reviewed. SSIs, non-infectious SSOs, and wound-related readmissions were recorded up to 180 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of SSIs detected at end-points of 30, 60, and 90 days of follow-up. Time-to-event analysis was performed for all outcomes at 30, 60, 90, and 180 days. Logistic regression was used estimate the relative risk of SSI for relevant risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients underwent open IHR. Median follow-up time of 102 days. Overall incidence of SSI was 15.8% with median time to occurrence of 23 days. Incidence of non-infectious SSO was 33.2%, and SSO-related readmission was 12.8%. At 30, 60, and 90 days sensitivity was 81.6%, 89.5%, and 92.1 for SSI, and 46.7%, 76.7%, and 83.3% for readmission. In regression analysis, body mass index (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00, 1.15, p = 0.04) anterior component separation (RR 4.21, 95% CI 2.09, 6.34, p = 0.003), and emergency surgery (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.47, 5.02, p = 0.01), were independently associated with SSI after adjusting for age, sex, contamination class, and procedure duration.

CONCLUSION

A considerable proportion of SSIs occurred beyond 30 days, but 90-day follow-up detected 92% of SSIs. Follow-up to 90 days captured only 83% of SSO-related readmissions. These results have implications for the design of trials evaluating wound complication after open IHR, as early endpoints may miss clinically relevant outcomes and underestimate the number needed to treat. Where possible, we recommend a minimum follow-up of 90 days to estimate wound complications following open IHR.