Search

Introduction : Hospitalists can be instrumental in management of inpatients with multiple comorbidities requiring complex medical care such as vascular surgery patients, as well as an expertise in health care delivery. We instituted a unique hospitalist co-management program and assessed length of stay, 30-day readmission rates and mortality, and performed an overall cost-analysis. Methods : Hospitalist co-management of vascular surgery inpatients was implemented beginning April 2019, and data was studied until March 2020. We compared this data to an eight-month period prior to implementing co-management (7/2018 – 3/2019). Patient-related outcomes that were assessed include length of stay, re-admission index, mortality index, case-mix index. Cost-analysis was performed to look at indirect and direct cost of care. Results : A total of 1,062 patients were included in the study 520 pre co-management and 542 patients were post-comanagement. Baseline case-mix index was 2.47, and post-comanagement was 2.46 (p>0.05). In terms of average length of stay (aLOS), the baseline aLOS was 5.16 days per patient, while after co-management it was significantly decreased by 1.25 days to 3.91 days (p Conclusions : Hospitalist co-management improves outcomes for vascular surgery inpatients, decreases length of stay, re-admission and mortality while providing a significant cost-savings. The overall average variable direct cost decreased by $1,732 per patient. Conclusion : Hospitalist co-management improves outcomes for vascular surgery inpatients, decreases length of stay, re-admission and mortality while providing a significant cost-savings.

Objective In the tide of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, few cases of robot-assisted pneumonectomy exist in the literature. This study evaluates the perioperative outcomes and risk factors for conversion to thoracotomy with an initial robotic approach to pneumonectomy for lung cancer. Methods This study is a single-center retrospective review of all pneumonectomies for lung cancer with an initial robotic approach between 2015 and 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups: surgeries completed robotically and surgeries converted to thoracotomy. Patient demographics, preoperative clinical data, surgical pathology, and perioperative outcomes were compared for meaningful differences between the groups. Results Thirteen total patients underwent robotic pneumonectomy with 8 of them completed robotically and 5 converted to thoracotomy. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the groups. The Robotic group had a shorter operative time ( P < 0.01) and less estimated blood loss ( P = 0.02). There were more lymph nodes harvested in the Robotic group ( P = 0.08) but without statistical significance. There were 2 major complications in the Robotic group and none in the Conversion group. Neither tumor size nor stage were predictive of conversion to thoracotomy. Conversions decreased over time with a majority occurring in the first 2 years. There were no conversions for bleeding and no mortalities. Conclusions Robotic pneumonectomy for lung cancer is a safe procedure and a reasonable alternative to thoracotomy. With meticulous technique, major bleeding can be avoided and most procedures can be completed robotically. Larger studies are needed to elucidate any advantages of a robotic versus open approach.