| Literature DB >> 35974252 |
Danielle Abbitt1,2, Kevin Choy3, Rose Castle3, Heather Carmichael3, Teresa S Jones3,4, Krzystof J Wikiel3,4, Carlton C Barnett3,4, John T Moore3,4, Thomas N Robinson3,4, Edward L Jones3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought many challenges including barriers to delivering high-quality surgical care and follow-up while minimizing the risk of infection. Telehealth has been increasingly utilized for post-operative visits, yet little data exists to guide surgeons in its use. We sought to determine safety and efficacy of telehealth follow-up in patients undergoing cholecystectomy during the global pandemic at a VA Medical Center (VAMC).Entities:
Keywords: Acute care surgery; Cholecystectomy; Telehealth; Telemedicine; Veteran
Year: 2022 PMID: 35974252 PMCID: PMC9380680 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09501-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 3.453
Fig. 1Cholecystectomy post operative outcomes for telehealth vs in person
Variables and outcomes of interest
| In-person 77 (%) | Telehealth 52 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, average (range) | 56 (23–88) | 56 (29–81) | 0.88 |
| Race/ethnicity | |||
| Caucasian | 55 (71%) | 39 (75%) | 0.34 |
| African American | 5 (6%) | 2 (4%) | |
| Hispanic | 9 (12%) | 8 (15%) | |
| Native American | 3 (4%) | 0 | |
| Native Hawaiian/other pacific islander | 3 (4%) | 0 | |
| Unknown | 2 (3%) | 3 (6%) | |
| Sex | 0.40 | ||
| Male | 56 (73%) | 42 (81%) | |
| Female | 21 (27%) | 10 (19%) | |
| BMI, average (range) | 29.92 | 30.28 | 0.80 |
| Underweight (< 18.5) | 1 (1%) | 0 | |
| Normal weight (18.5–24.9) | 16 (21%) | 10 (19%) | |
| Overweight (25.0–29.9) | 24 (31%) | 19 (37%) | |
| Obese (≥ 30.0) | 36 (47%) | 23 (44%) | |
| CCI, average | 2.15 (0–6) | 2.06 (0–6) | 0.40 |
| Distance from VAMC | 0.21 | ||
| < 50 miles | 39 (51%) | 33 (63%) | |
| ≥ 50 miles | 38 (49%) | 19 (37%) | |
| Social Vulnerability Index, average (range) | 0.3994 (0.0033–0.9631) | 0.4065 (0.0013–0.9490) | 0.89 |
| Service connection, average (range) | 42.6 (0–100) | 37.9 (0–100) | 0.50 |
| ASA classification | 0.90 | ||
| I | 3 (4%) | 1 (2%) | |
| II | 31 (40%) | 20 (38%) | |
| III | 41 (53%) | 30 (58%) | |
| IV | 2 (3%) | 1 (2%) | |
| Urgency | 0.35 | ||
| Urgent cases | 24 (31%) | 21 (40%) | |
| Elective | 53 (69%) | 31 (60%) | |
| Conversion to open | 5 (7%) | 0(0) | 0.09 |
| Wound classification | 0.55 | ||
| Class II (Clean-contaminated) | 70 (91%) | 44 (85%) | |
| Class III (Contaminated) | 6 (8%) | 7 (13%) | |
| Class IV (Dirty) | 1 (1%) | 1 (2%) | |
| Disposition | 0.21 | ||
| Outpatient | 39 (41%) | 20 (38%) | |
| Admitted | 38 (49%) | 32 (62%) | |
Results (Baseline demographics and operative factors) for telehealth vs In-person. Statistical significance represented by p value
BMI Body Mass Index, CCI Charlson Comorbidity Index, VAMC Veteran affairs medical center, ASA American society of anesthesiologists
Results for telehealth vs In-Person
| In-person 77 (%) | Telehealth 52 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Emergency department visit | 7 (9%) | 5 (10%) | 0.78 |
| Complications | 6 (8%) | 4 (8%) | > 0.99 |
| Cardiopulmonary | 3 (4%) | 0 | 0.17 |
| Infection complications | 2 (3%) | 3 (6%) | 0.12 |
| Superficial | 0 | 2 (4%) | |
| Deep | 0 | 1 (2%) | |
| Organ/space | 2 (3%) | 0 | |
| Bile leak | 0(0) | 1 (2%) | 0.40 |
| Post operative bleeding | 1 (1%) | 0 | |
| 30-day readmission | 6 (8%) | 3 (6%) | 0.74 |
| Additional procedures | 4 (5%) | 2 (4%) | 0.41 |
| Operative | 2 (3%) | 0 | |
| ERCP | 2 (3%) | 1 (2%) | |
| Bedside I&D | 0 | 1 (2%) |
Results for post operative outcomes for telehealth vs In-person. Statistical significance represented by p value
ERCP Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, I&D Incision & drainage
Fig. 2Incidence of post operative outcomes [Emergency Department (ED) visit, complications, 30-day readmission and additional procedure for both telehealth and in-person follow up, as percentage]. ED Emergency department