Routine Leak Testing in Colorectal Surgery in the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program
University of Washington, Department of Surgery and Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960)
(Impact Factor: 4.93).
04/2012; 147(4):345-51. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.12
To evaluate the effect of routine anastomotic leak testing (performed to screen for leaks) vs selective testing (performed to evaluate for a suspected leak in a higher-risk or technically difficult anastomosis) on outcomes in colorectal surgery because the value of provocative testing of colorectal anastomoses as a quality improvement metric has yet to be determined.
Observational, prospectively designed cohort study.
Data from Washington state's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP).
Patients undergoing elective left-sided colon or rectal resections at 40 SCOAP hospitals from October 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009.
Use of leak testing, distinguishing procedures that were performed at hospitals where leak testing was selective (<90% use) or routine (≥ 90% use) in a given calendar quarter.
Adjusted odds ratio of a composite adverse event (CAE) (unplanned postoperative intervention and/or in-hospital death) at routine testing hospitals.
Among 3449 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.8 [14.8] years; 55.0% women), the CAE rate was 5.5%. Provocative leak testing increased (from 56% in the starting quarter to 76% in quarter 16) and overall rates of CAE decreased (from 7.0% in the starting quarter to 4.6% in quarter 16; both P ≤ .01) over time. Among patients at hospitals that performed routine leak testing, we found a reduction of more than 75% in the adjusted risk of CAEs (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.99).
Routine leak testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses appears to be associated with a reduced rate of CAEs within the SCOAP network and meets many of the criteria of a worthwhile quality improvement metric.
Available from: PubMed Central
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This review discusses the preoperative evaluation of patients preparing for elective colorectal resection, touching on several specific categories of morbidity, including cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic, renal, and surgical site complications. For each of these, the evidence for practices that optimize patient function and minimize risk is reviewed. Finally, authors discuss how to counsel high-risk surgical patients, including those for whom elective surgery is not recommended.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Bladder cancer is the most expensive cancer per capita to treat in the US healthcare system. Substantial costs associated with the diagnosis, management and surveillance of bladder cancer account for the bulk of the expense; yet, for that cost, patients may not receive high-quality care. Herein the authors review the sources of expenditure associated with bladder cancer care, review population-level analyses of the quality of bladder cancer care in the USA, and discuss opportunities for quality improvement that may yield greater value for men and women newly diagnosed with bladder cancer.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.