Search

Background: Surgical quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) aim to improve patient outcomes through coaching, benchmarked data reporting, and other activities. Although other regional QICs have formed organically over time, it is unknown whether a comprehensive quality improvement program implemented simultaneously across hospitals at the formation of a QIC would improve patient outcomes., Study Design: Patients undergoing surgery at 48 hospitals in the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC) were included. Risk-adjusted rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared from baseline to year 3. Difference-in-differences analyses compared ISQIC hospitals with hospitals in the NSQIP Participant Use File (PUF), which served as a control., Results: There were 180,582 patients who underwent surgery at ISQIC-participating hospitals. Inpatient procedures comprised 100,219 (55.5%) cases. By year 3, risk-adjusted rates of death or serious morbidity decreased in both ISQIC (relative reduction 25.0%, p < 0.001) and PUF hospitals (7.8%, p < 0.001). Adjusted difference-in-differences analysis revealed that ISQIC participation was associated with a significantly greater reduction in death or serious morbidity (odds ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p = 0.01) compared with PUF hospitals. Relative reductions in risk-adjusted rates of other outcomes were also seen in both ISQIC and PUF hospitals (morbidity 22.4% vs 6.4%; venous thromboembolism 20.0% vs 5.0%; superficial surgical site infection 27.3% vs 7.7%, all p < 0.05), although these difference-in-differences did not reach statistical significance., Conclusions: Although complication rates decreased at both ISQIC and PUF hospitals, participation in ISQIC was associated with a significantly greater improvement in death or serious morbidity. These results underscore the potential of QICs to improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adherence to bundled interventions can reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rates; however, predictors of successful implementation are poorly characterized. We studied the association of patient and hospital characteristics with adherence to a colorectal SSI reduction bundle across a statewide surgical collaborative., Study Design: A 16-component colorectal SSI reduction bundle was introduced in 2016 across a statewide quality improvement collaborative. Bundle adherence was measured for patients who underwent colorectal operations at participating institutions. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models were constructed to estimate associations of patient and hospital factors with bundle adherence and quantify sources of variation., Results: Among 2,403 patients at 35 hospitals, a median of 11 of 16 (68.8%, interquartile range 8 to 13) bundle elements were completed. The likelihood of completing 11 or more elements was increased for obese patients (56.8% vs 51.5%, odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.86, p = 0.022) but reduced for underweight patients (31.0% vs 51.5%, OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.00, p = 0.048) compared with patients with a normal BMI. Lower adherence was noted for patients treated at safety net hospitals (n = 9 hospitals, 24.4% vs 54.4%, OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.44, p = 0.004). The largest proportion of adherence variation was attributable to hospital factors for six bundle elements, surgeon factors for no elements, and patient factors for nine elements., Conclusion: Adherence to an SSI reduction bundle is associated with patient BMI and hospital safety net status. Quality improvement groups should consider institutional traits for optimal implementation of SSI bundles. Safety net hospitals may require additional focus to overcome unique implementation barriers., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies have focused on the development and evaluation of care bundles to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) throughout the perioperative period. A focused examination of the technical/surgical aspects of SSI reduction during CRS has not been conducted. This study aimed to develop an expert consensus on intraoperative technical/surgical aspects of SSI prevention by the surgical team during colorectal surgery (CRS)., Study Design: In a modified Delphi process, a panel of 15 colorectal surgeons developed a consensus on intraoperative technical/surgical aspects of SSI prevention undertaken by surgical personnel during CRS using information from a targeted literature review and expert opinion. Consensus was developed with up to three rounds per topic, with a prespecified threshold of ≥70% agreement., Results: In 3 Delphi rounds, the 15 panelists achieved consensus on 16 evidence-based statements. The consensus panel supported the use of wound protectors/retractors, sterile incision closure tray, preclosure glove change, and antimicrobial sutures in reducing SSI along with wound irrigation with aqueous iodine and closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy in high-risk, contaminated wounds., Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi method, consensus has been achieved on a tailored set of recommendations on technical/surgical aspects that should be considered by surgical personnel during CRS to reduce the risk of SSI, particularly in areas where the evidence base is controversial or lacking. This document forms the basis for ongoing evidence for the topics discussed in this article or new topics based on newly emerging technologies in CRS., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Surgeons.)

Background: The ideal technique for the use of AlloDerm (LifeCell Corp) in complicated ventral hernia repair has not been defined. The expense of these products mandates careful evaluation to justify their widespread use. We compared two techniques of fascial bridging versus fascial reinforcement repair with regard to their longterm recurrence rates using AlloDerm., Study Design: We retrospectively studied patients with abdominal defects repaired with AlloDerm at our institution., Results: Thirty-seven patients with abdominal wall repairs using AlloDerm were identified between January 2004 and December 2005. Eleven patients underwent bridged fascial repair; 26 patients had reinforced fascial repair. There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups in terms of average age (57 versus 52 years), body mass index (35 versus 29 kg/m(2)), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2.9 versus 2.5), or number of earlier abdominal operations (3.4 versus 3.5). The average sizes of AlloDerm used were 175 cm(2) for bridged and 89 cm(2) for reinforced repair (p=0.005). In patients with reinforced closure, primary repair was achieved with lateral component separation in 22 of 26 patients. Mean followup was 21.4 months (range 15 to 36 months). In the bridged group, 1 patient died on postoperative day 20. Of the remaining 10 patients, 8 patients (80%) developed recurrences. Seven patients required reoperation, but one patient refused repair. In the reinforced group, four patients were lost to followup and two patients died. Four of the remaining 20 patients (20%) developed recurrences that required repair; this was significantly different from the recurrence rate in the bridged group (p=0.009)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the method in which AlloDerm is used in abdominal wall reconstruction has a significant impact on recurrence rates. Based on our findings, AlloDerm should be used only as a reinforcement after primary fascial reappoximation.