The Practice of Overlapping Colorectal Operations in a Tertiary Care Center Is Safe: A Model for Advancing Team-based Care

Surgeon Perspectives on Benefits and Downsides of Overlapping Surgery: In-depth, Qualitative Interviews

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to characterize surgeon perspectives regarding the benefits and downsides of conducting overlapping surgery.

BACKGROUND

Although surgeons are key stakeholders in current discussions surrounding overlapping surgery, little has been published regarding their opinions on the practice. Further characterization of surgeon perspectives is needed to guide future studies and policy development regarding overlapping surgery.

METHODS

Study information was sent to all members of 3 professional surgical societies. Interested individuals were eligible to participate if they identified as attending surgeons in an academic setting who work with trainees. Purposive selection was used to diversify surgeons interviewed across multiple dimensions, including subspecialty and opinion regarding appropriateness of overlapping surgery. In-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with participants regarding their opinions on overlapping surgery.

RESULTS

The 51 surgeons interviewed identified a wide array of potential benefits and disadvantages of overlapping surgery, some of which have not previously been measured, including downsides to surgeon wellness and patient experience, less surgeon control over procedures, and difficulty in scheduling cases. Interviewees often disagreed as to whether overlapping surgery negatively or positively affects each dimension discussed, particularly regarding the impact on resident training.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of the novel perspectives presented here will allow for targeted assessment of physician perspectives in future quantitative studies and increase the likelihood that variables measured encompass the range of factors that surgeons find meaningful and relevant. Priority areas of future research should include examining effects of overlapping surgery on surgical training and surgeon wellness.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes and Safety between Overlapping and Nonoverlapping Surgeries in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

PURPOSE

Overlapping surgery or double-booking is a vital yet disputed issue in healthcare field. However, safety of the overlapping surgery during laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and safety of overlapping surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE for gallbladder and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed 2736 laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE surgeries during 2013-2020. One thousand, two hundred eighty patients underwent LCBDE through cystic duct, including 867 receiving overlapping procedures, while 1456 underwent LCBDE through laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC), including 981 who underwent overlapping procedures. Data regarding patient sex, age, body mass index, the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, comorbidities, preoperative liver function test, previous upper abdominal surgery, presence of acute cholecystitis, cholangitis, pancreatitis, or jaundice, common bile duct (CBD) or CBDS diameter, CBDS number, LCBDE operation time, procedure duration, length of stay, stone clearance, CBD closure methods, conversion to open surgery, and complications were collected.

RESULTS

Differences in demographics and clinical variables between both groups were not significant, and the unadjusted outcomes were comparable, except for the total procedure duration (transcystic: p < .001; LC: p < .001). After adjusting for demographics and clinical variables, overlapping surgery showed an extended total surgical procedure duration (transcystic: standardized coefficient = 0.084, p = .004; LC: standardized coefficient = 0.072, p = .015). Other effects of overlapping surgery were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Overlapping surgery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE was safe at our institution. However, the association of patient outcomes with overlapping laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE should be further investigated.

Overlapping Urological Surgeries at a Tertiary Academic Center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the practice of procedure-time overlapping surgery (OS) is associated with inferior outcomes compared to nonoverlapping surgery (NOS) in urology, to address the paucity of data surrounding urologic surgeries to support or refute this practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all urological surgeries at a single tertiary-level academic center, Emory University Hospital, from July 2016 to July 2018. Patients who received OS were matched 1:2 to patients who had NOS. The primary outcomes were perioperative and postoperative complications and mortality.

RESULTS

We reviewed 8535 urological surgeries. In-room time overlap was seen in 50.5% of cases and procedure-time overlap in 7.4%. Eleven out of the 13 attending urologists performed OS. The average time in the operating room was greater for OS by an average of 14 minutes. The average operative time was greater for OS than NOS by 11 minutes, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference between the cohorts for rate of blood transfusions, ICU stay, need for postoperative invasive procedures, length of postoperative hospital stay, discharge location, Emergency Room visits, hospital readmission rate, 30 and 90-day rates of postoperative complications, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Procedure-time overlapping surgeries constituted a minority of urological cases. OS were associated with greater in-room time. We found no increased risk of perioperative or postoperative adverse outcomes in OS compared to matched NOS.

What Does it Mean for a Surgeon to “Run Two Rooms”? A Comprehensive Literature Review of Overlapping and Concurrent Surgery Policies

The aim of this study was to review and analyze all of the “concurrent surgery” (CS) and “overlapping surgery” (OS) literature with the goal of: standardizing terminology, defining discrepancies in the literature and proposing solutions for the current challenges of regulating surgery to achieve maximal safety and efficiency. The CS and OS literature has grown exponentially over the past two years. Before this, there were no significant publications addressing this topic. There is an extremely wide variance on how “running two rooms” is defined and whether it should be permitted. These differences affect our patients’ perception of this practice. The literature lacks any comprehensive review of the topic and terminology. We performed a PubMed search to identify studies that considered the issue of OS. The terms “overlapping surgery”, “concurrent surgery”, and “simultaneous surgery” (SS) were used in the query. We then analyzed the publications identified. The literature contained 18 published studies analyzing OS safety between November 2016 and June 2018. Eight were neurosurgical studies, three were orthopedic, and the remaining seven articles were in other surgical specialties. A total of 1,207,155 surgical cases (range 250–>500,000 patients) were analyzed among the 18 studies. There were 57,880 (5.04%) OS cases. The OS rates in the individual studies ranged from 1.2 to 68 per cent (Table 1). Neurosurgical studies had the highest average OS rate of 54 per cent (range 37–68%), whereas the average OS rate in orthopedic surgery was 43 per cent (range 2.7–68%). Approximately one-third of the studies were multicenter investigations (27.7%). The studies measured more than 20 distinct outcomes, but there were only five outcomes that were included in the majority of the studies: mortality rates, reoperation rates, procedure length of time, readmission rates, and hospital length of stay. The current body of literature repeatedly demonstrates that OS is a safe and effective option when undertaken by experienced surgeons who practice it frequently. For successful OS, the Mandatory Attending Portion for two surgeries must not overlap and Unnecessary Anesthesia Time must be prohibited. Hospitals and surgical specialty organizations must implement policies to assure the safe practice of OS.