556 Hospital Length of Stay for Patients with Small and Medium Burns Impacted by Distance to Burn Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S118-S119
Author(s):  
Stephen Sibbett ◽  
Jamie Oh ◽  
Saman Arbabi ◽  
Gretchen J Carrougher ◽  
Nicole S Gibran
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Site Location ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Hispanic Males ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract Introduction Understanding contributors to patient length of stay is critical for burn center resource management and efficiency. In this study, we analyzed how distance from patient homes to a burn center impacts hospital length of stay. Methods Under IRB approval, we reviewed our trauma registry for burn patients admitted to a regional burn center from 2011 to 2018. Inclusion was limited to patients from the burn center state. Patients were grouped by distance from the home zip code to the burn center (≤100 and >100 miles) according to what might be ground or air transport. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to determine differences between groups by race, burn size (TBSA), hospital length of stay (LOS), LOS/TBSA, mortality, and disposition to home. Burn size was categorized by TBSA into small (0–20%), medium (21–50%) and large (51–100%) burns. Results Our study population was predominantly white, non-Hispanic males. Mean burn size was significantly higher in patients who traveled more than the >100 miles to the burn center (Table). Mean LOS/TBSA was not significant between the two groups. However, controlling for burn size, patients with small and medium burns that lived farther from the burn center had significantly longer hospital stays. There was no significant difference in length of stay for patients with large burns, mortality or disposition to home between the two distance groups. Conclusions At a burn center with a large catchment area, patients with burn size < 50%TBSA who lived more than 100 miles from the burn center had significantly longer hospital stays than those who lived closer to the burn center. This may indicate that patients who are referred to a regional burn center for care of smaller burns may require care beyond the level of their local hospitals. It is worth noting that using burn size as an indication of complexity of care may be misleading as body site location of the burn (e.g. hand, face or feet) impacts the recovery. Applicability of Research to Practice For a burn center that serves patients across a vast region, this investigation might be useful in identifying opportunities to provide care for patients who live far from tertiary burn care.

705 Evaluation of Burn Resuscitation Practices at a Large Burn Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S183-S184
Author(s):  
Rita Gayed ◽  
Tu-Trinh Tran ◽  
Ansley Tidwell ◽  
Juvonda Hodge ◽  
Walter L Ingram
Keyword(s):  
Ascorbic Acid ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Burn Shock ◽  
Individual Response ◽  
Successful Resuscitation ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Burn Resuscitation

Abstract Introduction Large burns cause a systemic inflammatory response in the entire body leading to profound capillary leak, tissue edema and hemodynamic instability, a condition known as burn shock. If not managed appropriately, the patient can go into cardiac collapse and multi-organ failure. Adequate and timely burn resuscitation is a cornerstone in burn care. Different formulas have been studied to estimate fluid needs during the first 24hrs. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate burn resuscitation practices of large burns (20% TBSA and greater) and their associated outcomes at a large urban burn center. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of adult patients admitted to the burn center with burns of 20% TBSA or greater who survived the first 48hrs of admission. Primary outcome was evaluating the percentage of patients who received resuscitation according to predetermined volume ranges (< or equal to 4ml/kg/% TBSA vs >4ml/kg/%TBSA). Secondary outcomes included the use of adjuncts (colloids and ascorbic acid), markers of over- and under-resuscitation, the use of perfusion markers to guide resuscitation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results One hundred and fifty one adults with burns of 30–50% TBSA were included. Fifty nine per cent of them received a median of 2.9ml/kg/%TBSA (low volume- LV group) compared to 41% that received 5.1ml/kg/%TBSA (high volume-HV group). The HV group received more adjuncts in form of colloids (73% vs 61%) and ascorbic acid infusion (55% vs 37% of patients). Majority of patients in both groups had an adequate urine output and showed an improved base deficit at 24hrs from admission which were used as resuscitation markers; lactate levels were trended infrequently. The most common over-resuscitation complication was pulmonary edema, found in both groups in ~ 30% of patients. Only 6% of patients in both groups required renal replacement therapy initiation at 96hrs from admission. Patients in the LV group had a shorter ICU and hospital length of stay (16 vs 36 days, and 27 vs 39 days, respectively, p value < 0.05). Conclusions Patients who received median resuscitation volumes of ~ 3ml/kg/%TBSA had better outcomes compared to patients who received higher volumes. Protocolized monitoring of resuscitation markers is key to tailoring resuscitation efforts to patient’s individual response. The effect of the different adjunct therapies (colloids, ascorbic acid) should be further investigated. Applicability of Research to Practice Burn resuscitation is a cornerstone of specialized critical burn care. Additional data regarding the amount and type of resuscitation volume used and its associated outcomes can advance practice to guide successful resuscitation and decrease early set backs that may further complicate the patient’s clinical course.

Overutilization of Helicopter Transport in the Minimally Burned—A Healthcare System Problem That Should Be Corrected

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Roman ◽  
William Shank ◽  
Joseph Demirjian ◽  
Andrew Tang ◽  
Gary A Vercruysse
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Inhalation Injury ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Admission Rates ◽  
Burn Center ◽  
Transport Distance ◽  
Hospital Transfer ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract Eighty-eight percent of all patients burned in North America suffer burns of less than 20% TBSA. These patients may need care at a burn center, but barring any inhalation injury or polytrauma, these patients do not require helicopter transport (HEMS). We sought to identify a cohort of patients suffering smaller burns who do not benefit from HEMS to establish significant health care system savings. A 5-year retrospective analysis of data collected from our trauma registry was performed. Patients were separated into two groups: HEMS and ground transport (EMS). A subanalysis was performed between those with smaller burns (<20% TBSA and no ICU/OR requirement). ED disposition, hospital length of stay, distance transported, and cost was analyzed. Of 616 burn patients presenting to our center, 13% were transported by HEMS, 46% by ambulance, and 61% by private vehicle. Of those transported via HEMS, 38% had been evaluated and treated at an outside hospital before transfer. Patients transported via HEMS had larger burns (13 vs 9 %TBSA; P = .002) and deeper burns (P < .001), longer hospital stays (P = .003), higher ICU admission rates (P < .001), and mortality rates (P = .003) compared with those transported by EMS. Transport distance was a mean 5.5 times greater (88 vs 16 mi) in the HEMS group (P < .001). Within this cohort, 53% of patients transported via HEMS suffered smaller burns, compared with 73% transported by EMS. A subanalysis of the smaller burns cohort showed increased distances of transport via HEMS (91 vs 18 mi; P < .001) and increased rates of admission from the ED in the EMS group (93% vs 68% by HEMS; P = .005), yet no difference in length of stay, or rates of early discharge, defined as <24-hour hospital stay. Fully 1/4 of those transported via HEMS with smaller burns were discharged from the ED after burn consultation, debridement, and dressing. Mortality in both was nil. Average cost per helicopter transport was US$29K. Accurate triage and burn center consultation before scene transport or hospital transfer could help identify patients not benefiting from HEMS yet safely transferrable by ground, or better served by early clinic follow-up, which would reduce cost without compromising care in this cohort. Annual patient savings approximating US$444K could be multiplied were non-HEMS transport universally adopted for smaller burns.

scholarly journals Does emergency medicine length of stay predict trauma outcomes at a Level 1 Trauma Center?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Hospital Capacity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

scholarly journals Effects of statins on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (8) ◽  
pp. 030006052093858
Author(s):  
Rony M. Zeenny ◽  
Hanine Mansour ◽  
Wissam K Kabbara ◽  
Nibal Chamoun ◽  
Myriam Audi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Comorbid Conditions ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chronic Use

Objective We evaluated the effect of chronic use of statins based on C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods We conducted a retrospective study over 12 months at a teaching hospital in Lebanon comparing patients with CAP taking chronic statins with patients not taking statins. Included patients with CAP were older than age 18 years and had two CRP level measures during hospitalization. CURB-65 criteria were used to assess the severity of pneumonia. A decrease in CRP levels on days 1 and 3, LOS, and normalization of fever were used to assess the response to antibiotics. Results Sixty-one patients were taking statins and 90 patients were not taking statins. Patients on statins had significantly more comorbid conditions; both groups had comparable CURB-65 scores. In both groups, no statistically significant difference was seen for the decrease in CRP level on days 1 and 3 and LOS. No difference in days to normalization of fever was detected in either group. Conclusion No association was found between the chronic use of statins and CRP levels, LOS, or days to fever normalization in patients with CAP.

scholarly journals Multimodal Analgesia in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Impact Amidst the Opioid Epidemic

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Lu ◽  
Erica Bertoncini
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Multimodal Analgesia ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Standard Group ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Hospital Stays

Abstract INTRODUCTION Spine surgery traditionally relies on opioid analgesics for postoperative pain management. Opioids are associated with prolonged hospital stays and opioid use disorders. Opioid-focused prescribing habits in surgery have partially contributed to the opioid epidemic. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed comparing patients receiving a multimodal analgesia regimen after lumbar fusion surgery vs control group receiving standard analgesia regimen. The multimodal regimen consisted of Acetaminophen 975 mg TID, Toradol 7.5 mg Q6 hours for 24-ho followed by Celebrex 100 mg BID for 7-d, Robaxin 500 mg Q6 hours prn for muscle spasms, Gabapentin 300 mg/100 mg TID for 4-wk, and prn narcotic. The standard regimen consisted of Acetaminophen 975 mg TID, narcotic prn, and muscle relaxant prn. There were 12 patients in the multimodal group and 26 patients in the control group evaluated over 3-mo and 6-mo time periods respectively. Primary outcomes included hospital length-of-stay, total and IV narcotic requirements in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME), and VASS pain scores. RESULTS Study results demonstrate differences between patient populations when focusing on the opioid-naïve participants. Opioid-naïve patients in the multimodal group were found to have significantly lower IV narcotic requirement than the control (0.22+/−0.67 mg/d for multimodal vs 5.36+/−5.56 mg/d for standard group, P-value = .001). These patients also had shorter hospital stays than the control (2.78+/−0.83 d for multimodal vs 3.53+/−1.17 d for standard group) but the difference was just below our threshold for significance (P-value = .066). Including both opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant patients, no significant differences were found in hospital length-of-stay, MME, IV narcotic requirement nor VASS score between the multimodal group and the control groups (P-values of .46, .81, .36, and .91, respectively). CONCLUSION Overall, the study favors using multimodal analgesia in those undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgeries as evident by considerably reduced IV narcotic requirement and nearly significant shortened hospital length-of-stay in opioid-naïve patients compared to control.

scholarly journals 2005. Successful Implementation of a Procalcitonin Algorithm Associated with Reduction in Antibiotic Days

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S672-S673
Author(s):  
John B McCoury ◽  
Randolph V Fugit ◽  
Mary T Bessesen
Keyword(s):  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Clinician Training ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mortality Table

Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials of procalcitonin (PCT)-based algorithms for antibacterial therapy have been shown to reduce antimicrobial use and improve survival. Translation of PCT algorithms to clinical settings has often been unsuccessful. Methods We implemented a PCT algorithm, supported by focus groups prior to introduction of the PCT test in April 2016 and clinician training on the PCT algorithm for testing and antimicrobial management after test roll-out. The standard PCT algorithm period (SPAP) was defined as October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. The antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) initiated an AST-supported PCT algorithm (ASPA) in August 2018. The AST prospectively evaluated patients admitted to ICU for sepsis and ordered PCT per algorithm if the primary medical team had not ordered them. The ASPA period was defined as October 1, 2018–March 31, 2019. The AST conducted concurrent review and feedback for all antibiotic orders during both periods, using PCT result when available. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between the two periods. The primary outcome was adherence to the PCT algorithm, with subcomponents of appropriate PCT orders and antimicrobial discontinuation. Secondary outcomes were total antibiotic days, excess antibiotic days avoided, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission and mortality. Continuous variables were analyzed with Student t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square or Mann–Whitney test, as appropriate. Results There were 35 cases in the SPAP cohort and 57 cases in the ASPA cohort. There were no differences in demographics or infection site (Table 1). Baseline PCT was ordered in 57% of the SPAP cohort and 90% of the ASPA cohort (P = 0.0006) (Table 2). Follow-up PCT was performed in 23% of SPAP and 76% of ASPA (P < 0.0001). Antibiotics were discontinued per algorithm in 2/35 (7%) in the SPAP cohort and 25/57 (44%) in the ASPA cohort (P < 0.0001). Total antibiotic days was 7 (IQR 4–10) in the SPAP cohort and 5 (IQR 2–7) in the ASPA cohort (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in LOS, ICU LOS, 30-day readmission, or mortality (Table 4). Conclusion A PCT algorithm successfully implemented by an AST was associated with a significant decrease in total antibiotic days. There were no differences in mortality or LOS. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Restructuring of inpatient rounds to improve quality of care in patients with cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 232-232
Author(s):  
Devika Govind Das ◽  
Courtney Williams ◽  
Kelly Nicole Godby ◽  
Gabrielle Betty Rocque ◽  
Pamela Cargo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Patient Care Team ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Calendar Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

232 Background: Traditionally, hospital units function as multidisciplinary teams which work in silos and communicate via notes in the Electronic Health System. This often leads to communication breakdown, frequently translating to adverse clinical outcomes and prolonged hospital length of stay. Our primary objective was to introduce Inter-Professional Team (IPT) rounds on the oncology unit and evaluate the impact on length of stay (LOS) within a Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle. Methods: The care transition team planned the IPT rounds structure and training curriculum which included team goals, post-rounds structure for addressing barriers to care progression, and member roles/scripting. Change in LOS and case mix index (CMI)-adjusted LOS post-IPT round implementation ( Do) in July 2017 was analyzed ( Study) using hierarchical linear models for patients with an admission to the oncology service from September 2016 to March 2018. Beta coefficients (β) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and models were adjusted for calendar time. Results: Ten attending medical oncologists participated in IPT round implementation. Of 889 oncology admissions, median LOS and CMI-adjusted LOS pre-IPT round implementation (n = 464) was 4 days (IQR 2-6) and 3 days (IQR 1.8-4.7), while post-IPT round implementation (n = 425) was 4 days (IQR 2-6) and 2.9 days (IQR 1.9-4.4), respectively. Three common reasons for admission were septicemia (n = 96), hematologic complications (n = 42, e.g. anemia/neutropenia), and renal failure (n = 25). Adjusted models for LOS and CMI-adjusted LOS showed no significant difference post-IPT round implementation (β = 0.8 days, 95% CI -0.7-2.3; β = 0.5 days, 95% CI -0.3-1.3, respectively) when compared to pre-implementation. Conclusions: We did not observe decreased LOS in early outcomes. However, IDT rounds built on TEAMSTEPPS 2.0 elements with incorporation of key principles desirable in a patient care team. Next steps include further analysis to better understand cancer stages and diagnoses contributing to longer LOS. We also plan to evaluate patient satisfaction, educational needs, and readmission rates to restructure ( Act) IPT rounds to better serve the needs of our unique patient population.

Perioperative complication rates following neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 688-688
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Deig ◽  
Blake Beneville ◽  
Amy Liu ◽  
Aasheesh Kanwar ◽  
Alison Grossblatt-Wait ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Perioperative Complication ◽  
The Impact

688 Background: Whether upfront resection or total neoadjuvant therapy is superior for the treatment of potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. The impact of neoadjuvant treatment on major perioperative complication rates for patients (pts) undergoing resection for PDAC is commonly debated. We hypothesized that rates would be comparable among patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation (neo-CRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (neo-CHT), or upfront surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 208 pts with PDAC who underwent resection within a multidisciplinary pancreatico-biliary program at an academic tertiary referral center between 2011-2018. Data were abstracted from the medical record, an institutional cancer registry and NSQIP databases. Outcomes were assessed using χ2, Fisher’s exact test and two-tailed Student’s t-tests. Results: 208 pts were identified: 33 locally advanced, borderline or upfront resectable pts underwent neo-CRT, 35 borderline or resectable pts underwent neoadjuvant-CHT, and 140 resectable pts did not undergo neoadjuvant therapy. There were no statistically significant differences in major perioperative complication rates between groups. Overall rates were 36.4%, 34.3%, and 26.4% for pts who underwent neo-CRT, neo-CHT alone, or upfront resection, respectively (p = 0.38). No significant difference were observed in complication rates (35.3% v. 26.4%; p = 0.19) or median hospital length of stay (10 days v. 10 days; p = 0.87) in pts who received any neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront resection. There were two perioperative deaths in the neo-CRT group (6.1%), zero in the neo-CHT group, and four in the upfront resection group (2.9%); p = 0.22. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in major perioperative complication rates, hospital length of stay, or post-operative mortality in pts who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (neo-CRT or neo-CHT alone) versus upfront surgery. Notably, neo-CRT had comparable perioperative complication rates to neo-CHT alone, which suggests neoadjuvant radiation therapy may not pose additional surgical risk.

scholarly journals Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Accorsi ◽  
Jonathan Chung ◽  
Amol Mujoomdar ◽  
Daniele Wiseman ◽  
Stewart Kribs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Human Trial ◽  
Institutional Control ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Related Mortality

Graphical abstarct Purpose To report the results of the first-in-human trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG) technique. Methods A prospective, industry-sponsored single-arm clinical trial of PUG insertion was performed in 25 adult patients under investigational device exemption (mean age 64 ± 15 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.5 ± 2.7 kg/m2). A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort of 25 patients who received percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) was generated as an institutional control (mean age 66 ± 14 years, 92% men, 80% inpatients, mean BMI 24.0 ± 2.7 kg/m2). Primary outcomes included successful insertion and 30-day procedure-related adverse events (AE’s). Secondary outcomes included procedural duration, sedation requirements, and hospital length of stay. Results All PUG procedures were successful, including 3/25 [12%] performed bedside within the ICU. There was no significant difference between PUG and PRG in rates of mild AE’s (3/25 [12%] for PUG and 7/25 [28%] for PRG, p = 0.16) or moderate AE’s (1/25 [4%] for PUG and 0/25 for PRG, p = 0.31). There were no severe AE’s or 30-day procedure-related mortality in either group. Procedural room time was longer for PUG (56.5 ± 14.1 min) than PRG (39.3 ± 15.0 min, p < 0.001). PUG procedure time was significantly shorter after a procedural enhancement, the incorporation of a Gauss meter to facilitate successful magnetic gastropexy. Length of stay for outpatients did not significantly differ (2.4 ± 0.5 days for PUG and 2.6 ± 1.0 days for PRG, p = 0.70). Conclusion PUG appears effective with a safety profile similar to PRG. Bedside point-of-care gastrostomy tube insertion using the PUG technique shows promise. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03575754. Graphical abstract

scholarly journals Can Liposomal Bupivacaine Be Safely Utilized in Elective Spine Surgery?

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Brown ◽  
Tristan Weir ◽  
Scott Koenig ◽  
Mark Shasti ◽  
Imran Yousaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Urinary Retention ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Liposomal Bupivacaine ◽  
Lumbar Decompression ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Study Design: Single-blinded prospective randomized control trial. Objectives: To compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and hospital length of stay between patients who received liposomal bupivacaine (LB) versus a single saline injection, following posterior lumbar decompression and fusion surgery for degenerative spondylosis. Methods: From 2015 to 2016, 59 patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion surgery were prospectively enrolled and randomized to receive either 60 mL injection of 266 mg LB or 60 mL of 0.9% sterile saline, intraoperatively. Outcome measures included the incidence of postoperative AEs and hospital length of stay. Results: The most common AEs in the treatment group were nausea (39.3%), emesis (18.1%), and hypotension (18.1%). Nausea (23%), constipation (19.2%), and urinary retention (15.3%) were most common in the control group. Patients who received LB had an increased risk of developing nausea (relative risk [RR] = 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75-3.8), emesis (RR = 2.3; 95% CI = 0.51-10.7), and headaches (RR = 2.36; 95% CI = 0.26-21.4). Patients receiving LB had a decreased risk of developing constipation (RR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.25-2.43), urinary retention (RR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.21-2.85), and pruritus (RR = 0.78; 95% = 0.21-2.8) postoperatively. Relative risk values mentioned above failed to reach statistical significance. No significant difference in the hospital length of stay between both groups was found (3.9 vs 3.9 days; P = .92). Conclusion: Single-dose injections of LB to the surgical site prior to wound closure did not significantly increase or decrease the incidence or risk of developing AEs postoperatively. Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the hospital length of stay between both groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document