OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated minor surgery procedures undertaken by a single plastic surgeon at BC Children's Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) for patient and physician satisfaction, parent impressions, psychological concerns and complications. METHODS: Data were collected from a retrospective chart review and a prospective patient survey. Eligible subjects for the retrospective study included all pediatric patients undergoing minor surgery between May 2011 and April 2013. Parameters of interest included patient demographics, minor surgery specifics, complications and outcomes. Eligible subjects for the prospective patient survey included consecutive patients undergoing minor surgery between June 2013 and August 2013, as well as their parents. RESULTS: A total of 219 procedures were included in the retrospective review. The mean age of subjects was 13.1 years (range two weeks to 18 years). The median length of follow-up was 46 days (range four to 606 days). There were no major complications; however, 45 minor complications in 36 patients were found. Complications included crusting (4.6%), delayed wound healing (3.2%), hypersensitivity (2.3%), scar hypertrophy (1.8%), infection (0.9%) and other (7.8%). Outcomes were categorized as one of four outcomes: both satisfied (89.9%); patient satisfied but physician unsatisfied (0.8%); patient unsatisfied and physician satisfied (3.1%); and both unsatisfied (6.2%). In the prospective study, 32 subjects consented to participate in the survey. Of these subjects, 10 children and 12 parents responded to the questionnaires. Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated that their goals were accomplished by their procedure and that they would be willing to undergo minor surgery again. CONCLUSION: Minor surgery is possible and practical in pediatric plastic surgery clinics, with few complications and high patient and surgeon satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated minor surgery procedures undertaken by a single plastic surgeon at BC Children's Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) for patient and physician satisfaction, parent impressions, psychological concerns and complications. METHODS: Data were collected from a retrospective chart review and a prospective patient survey. Eligible subjects for the retrospective study included all pediatric patients undergoing minor surgery between May 2011 and April 2013. Parameters of interest included patient demographics, minor surgery specifics, complications and outcomes. Eligible subjects for the prospective patient survey included consecutive patients undergoing minor surgery between June 2013 and August 2013, as well as their parents. RESULTS: A total of 219 procedures were included in the retrospective review. The mean age of subjects was 13.1 years (range two weeks to 18 years). The median length of follow-up was 46 days (range four to 606 days). There were no major complications; however, 45 minor complications in 36 patients were found. Complications included crusting (4.6%), delayed wound healing (3.2%), hypersensitivity (2.3%), scar hypertrophy (1.8%), infection (0.9%) and other (7.8%). Outcomes were categorized as one of four outcomes: both satisfied (89.9%); patient satisfied but physician unsatisfied (0.8%); patient unsatisfied and physician satisfied (3.1%); and both unsatisfied (6.2%). In the prospective study, 32 subjects consented to participate in the survey. Of these subjects, 10 children and 12 parents responded to the questionnaires. Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated that their goals were accomplished by their procedure and that they would be willing to undergo minor surgery again. CONCLUSION: Minor surgery is possible and practical in pediatric plastic surgery clinics, with few complications and high patient and surgeon satisfaction.
Entities:
Keywords:
Local anesthesia; Minor procedures; Minor surgery; Outpatient surgery; Pediatric plastic surgery
Authors: Donald Lalonde; Michael Bell; Paul Benoit; Gerald Sparkes; Keith Denkler; Peter Chang Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: S George; P Pockney; J Primrose; H Smith; P Little; H Kinley; R Kneebone; A Lowy; B Leppard; N Jayatilleke; C McCabe Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.014