Karl Jallad1, Matthew D Barber2, Beri Ridgeway2, Marie Fidela R Paraiso2, Cecile A Unger2. 1. Center for Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. karljallad@gmail.com. 2. Center for Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to determine if the surgical start time affects operating room time and the incidence of perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of 396 women who underwent laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy at a tertiary care center between January 2006 and December 2012. Cases were divided into those with a first, second or third start time. Operating room (OR) time was defined as time the patient entered the room to time out of the room (minutes) and the case time was defined as the period between incision and closure (minutes). Adverse events were defined a priori and also reported using the Clavien-Dindo grading scale. Logistic regression analysis was performed for categorical variables and multiple linear regression analysis for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 145 robotic and 261 conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies were performed. Operating room time data were available for 396 cases. Of the cases, 63.9 % (253 out of 396) had a first start, 32.1 % (127 out of 396) had a second start, and 4 % (16 out of 396) had a third start. Robotic and concomitant rectopexy cases were more likely to be performed as first-start cases and operating room time and case time were longest for first-start cases. However, after adjusting for mode of surgery, concomitant procedures, previous surgeries, BMI, and age, this finding was no longer statistically significant. There was no difference in the rate of perioperative adverse events among first-, and second-/third-start cases. CONCLUSION: Surgical case start time does not appear to be associated with operating time or the incidence of perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to determine if the surgical start time affects operating room time and the incidence of perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of 396 women who underwent laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy at a tertiary care center between January 2006 and December 2012. Cases were divided into those with a first, second or third start time. Operating room (OR) time was defined as time the patient entered the room to time out of the room (minutes) and the case time was defined as the period between incision and closure (minutes). Adverse events were defined a priori and also reported using the Clavien-Dindo grading scale. Logistic regression analysis was performed for categorical variables and multiple linear regression analysis for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 145 robotic and 261 conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies were performed. Operating room time data were available for 396 cases. Of the cases, 63.9 % (253 out of 396) had a first start, 32.1 % (127 out of 396) had a second start, and 4 % (16 out of 396) had a third start. Robotic and concomitant rectopexy cases were more likely to be performed as first-start cases and operating room time and case time were longest for first-start cases. However, after adjusting for mode of surgery, concomitant procedures, previous surgeries, BMI, and age, this finding was no longer statistically significant. There was no difference in the rate of perioperative adverse events among first-, and second-/third-start cases. CONCLUSION: Surgical case start time does not appear to be associated with operating time or the incidence of perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: David J Magid; Yongfei Wang; Jeph Herrin; Robert L McNamara; Elizabeth H Bradley; Jeptha P Curtis; Charles V Pollack; William J French; Martha E Blaney; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-08-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Fnu Deepinder; Prashanthi N Thota; Rocio Lopez; Carol A Burke Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Brian J Eastridge; Elizabeth C Hamilton; Grant E O'Keefe; Robert V Rege; Rawson J Valentine; Daniel J Jones; Seifu Tesfay; Erwin R Thal Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Cecile A Unger; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; John E Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Beri Ridgeway Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Rachel R Kelz; Kathryn M Freeman; Patrick W Hosokawa; David A Asch; Francis R Spitz; Miriam Moskowitz; William G Henderson; Marc E Mitchell; Kamal M F Itani Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Katrina N Slaughter; Michael Frumovitz; Kathleen M Schmeler; Alpa M Nick; Nicole D Fleming; Ricardo dos Reis; Mark F Munsell; Shannon N Westin; Pamela T Soliman; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 5.482