Accidental Puncture or Laceration in Colorectal Surgery: A Quality Indicator or a Complexity Measure?
ABSTRACT : Accidental puncture or laceration during a surgical procedure is a patient safety indicator that is publicly reported and will factor into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's pay-for-performance plan. Accidental puncture or laceration includes serosal tear, enterotomy, and injury to the ureter, bladder, spleen, or blood vessels.
: This study aimed to identify risk factors and assess surgical outcomes related to accidental puncture or laceration.
: This is a retrospective study.
: This study was conducted in a single-hospital department of colorectal surgery.
: Inpatients undergoing colorectal surgery in which an accidental puncture or laceration did or did not occur were selected.
: The primary outcomes measured were surgical complications, length of stay, and readmission.
: Of 2897 operations, 269 had accidental puncture or laceration (9.2%) including serosal tear (47%), enterotomy (38%), and extraintestinal injuries (15%). Accidental puncture or laceration cases had more diagnoses of enterocutaneous fistula (11% vs 2%, p < 0.001), reoperative cases (91% vs 61%, p < 0.001), open surgery (96% vs 77%, p < 0.001), longer operative times (186 vs 146 minutes, p = 0.001), and increased length of stay (10 vs 7days, p = 0.002). Patients with serosal tears had entirely similar outcomes to those without an injury, whereas patients with enterotomies had increased operative times and length of stay, and patients with extraintestinal injuries had higher rates of reoperation and sepsis (p < 0.05 for all).
: This study was limited by the loss of sensitivity due to grouping extraintestinal injuries.
: Accidental puncture or laceration is more likely to occur in complex colorectal operations. The clinical consequences range from none to significant depending on the specific type of injury. To make accidental puncture or laceration a more meaningful quality indicator, we advocate that groups who use the measure eliminate the injuries that have no bearing on surgical outcome and that risk adjustment for operative complexity is performed.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimSignificant variation in colorectal surgery outcomes exist between different countries. Better understanding of the sources of variable outcomes using administrative data requires alignment of differing clinical coding systems. We aimed to map similar diagnoses and procedures across administrative coding systems used in different countries.Method Administrative data were collected in a central database as part of The Global Comparators (GC) Project. In order to unify these data, a systematic translation of diagnostic and procedural codes was undertaken. Codes for colorectal diagnoses, resections, operative complications and reoperative interventions were mapped across the respective national healthcare administrative coding systems. Discharge data from January 2006 to June 2011 for patients who had undergone colorectal surgical resections were analysed to generate risk-adjusted models for mortality, length of stay, readmissions and reoperations.Results52544 case records were collated from 31 institutions in five countries. Mapping of all the coding systems was achieved so that diagnosis and procedures from the participant countries could be compared. Using the aligned coding systems to develop risk adjusted models, the 30-day mortality rate for colorectal surgery was 3.95% (95% confidence int4erval [CI] 0.86-7.54), the 30-day readmission rate was 11.05% (5.67-17.61), the 28-day reoperation rate was 6.13% (3.68-9.66) and the mean length of stay was 14 (7.65-46.76) days.Conclusion The linkage of international hospital administrative data that we developed enabled comparison of documented surgical outcomes between countries. This methodology may facilitate international benchmarking.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Colorectal Disease 03/2014; 16(7). DOI:10.1111/codi.12624 · 2.02 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Iatrogenic injury to the ureter is a potentially devastating complication of modern surgery. The ureters are most often injured in gynecologic, colorectal, and vascular pelvic surgery. There is also potential for considerable ureteral injury during endoscopic procedures for ureteric pathology such as tumor or lithiasis. While maneuvers such as perioperative stenting have been touted as a means to avoid ureteral injury, these techniques have not been adopted universally, and the available literature does not make a case for their routine use. Distal ureteral injuries are best managed with ureteroneocystostomy with or without a vesico-psoas hitch. Mid-ureteral and proximal ureteral injuries can potentially be managed with ureteroureterostomy. If the distal segment is unsuitable for anastomosis then a number of techniques are available for repair including a Boari tubularized bladder flap, transureteroureterostomy, or renal autotransplantation. In rare cases renal autotransplantation or ureteral substitution with gastrointestinal segments may be warranted to re-establish urinary tract continuity. Laparoscopic and minimally invasive techniques have been employed to remedy iatrogenic ureteral injuries.Therapeutic Advances in Urology 06/2014; 6(3):115-124. DOI:10.1177/1756287214526767