Surgeons' prioritization of emergency abdominal surgery and its impact on postoperative outcomes.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Severin Gloor, Antonio Wyss, Daniel Candinas, Beat Schnüriger
{"title":"Surgeons' prioritization of emergency abdominal surgery and its impact on postoperative outcomes.","authors":"Severin Gloor, Antonio Wyss, Daniel Candinas, Beat Schnüriger","doi":"10.1007/s00423-025-03723-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency general abdominal surgery (EGS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Timely intervention and effective triage systems are crucial to improve outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of surgeons' prioritization and adherence to a triage protocol on postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Single-center retrospective analysis of patients undergoing EGS at Bern University Hospital from 03/2015-12/2022. Patients were categorized into four triage levels based on the urgency of surgery (level 1 within 1 h, level 2 within 6 h, level 3 within 12 h, and level 4 within 24 h). \"Protocol violation\" was defined in cases where the delay to surgery exceeded the triage level. Primary endpoint included complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification in patients with versus without \"protocol violation\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1'947 patients were included. The mean overall delay from admission to surgery was in triage level 1 69.5 ± 127.5 min., in triage level 2 206.5 ± 178.0 min., in triage level 3 350.6 ± 282.6 min. and in triage level 4 693.4 ± 354.8 min.. Triage levels 1 and 2 correlated significantly with increased complication rates compared to triage level 3 and 4 (64% vs. 43% vs. 11% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Similarly, mortality rates decreased significantly from triage level 1 through 4 (26% vs. 7% vs. 1% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). \"Protocol violation\" occurred in a total of 13% of patients with decreasing proportions from triage level 1 to 4 (37% vs. 13% vs. 12% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). \"Protocol violation\" did not statistically affect overall morbidity and mortality in most of the diagnoses. In patients with intestinal ischemia or abdominal abscesses, mortality was significantly higher in patients with \"protocol violation\". In contrast, in patients suffering from acute inguinal hernias or gastrointestinal bleeding, morbidity was significantly higher in patients without \"protocol violation\". A significantly shorter hospital length of stay (HLOS) was shown in triage level 2 and triage level 3 when patients were treated without \"protocol violation\" (8.6 ± 10.0 days vs. 13.5 ± 17.3 days, p = 0.022 and 5.3 ± 8.7 days vs. 6.4 ± 6.7 days, p < 0.001, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgeons' triage levels significantly correlated with mortality and morbidity. Moreover, \"protocol violation\" resulted in higher mortality in patients suffering from mesenteric ischemia and abdominal abscesses and resulted in prolonged HLOS. Further incorporating objective parameters into triage decisions in the EGS population may enhance prioritization accuracy, patient safety and resource utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"410 1","pages":"153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058830/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-025-03723-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emergency general abdominal surgery (EGS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Timely intervention and effective triage systems are crucial to improve outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of surgeons' prioritization and adherence to a triage protocol on postoperative outcomes.

Methods: Single-center retrospective analysis of patients undergoing EGS at Bern University Hospital from 03/2015-12/2022. Patients were categorized into four triage levels based on the urgency of surgery (level 1 within 1 h, level 2 within 6 h, level 3 within 12 h, and level 4 within 24 h). "Protocol violation" was defined in cases where the delay to surgery exceeded the triage level. Primary endpoint included complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification in patients with versus without "protocol violation".

Results: A total of 1'947 patients were included. The mean overall delay from admission to surgery was in triage level 1 69.5 ± 127.5 min., in triage level 2 206.5 ± 178.0 min., in triage level 3 350.6 ± 282.6 min. and in triage level 4 693.4 ± 354.8 min.. Triage levels 1 and 2 correlated significantly with increased complication rates compared to triage level 3 and 4 (64% vs. 43% vs. 11% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Similarly, mortality rates decreased significantly from triage level 1 through 4 (26% vs. 7% vs. 1% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). "Protocol violation" occurred in a total of 13% of patients with decreasing proportions from triage level 1 to 4 (37% vs. 13% vs. 12% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). "Protocol violation" did not statistically affect overall morbidity and mortality in most of the diagnoses. In patients with intestinal ischemia or abdominal abscesses, mortality was significantly higher in patients with "protocol violation". In contrast, in patients suffering from acute inguinal hernias or gastrointestinal bleeding, morbidity was significantly higher in patients without "protocol violation". A significantly shorter hospital length of stay (HLOS) was shown in triage level 2 and triage level 3 when patients were treated without "protocol violation" (8.6 ± 10.0 days vs. 13.5 ± 17.3 days, p = 0.022 and 5.3 ± 8.7 days vs. 6.4 ± 6.7 days, p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion: Surgeons' triage levels significantly correlated with mortality and morbidity. Moreover, "protocol violation" resulted in higher mortality in patients suffering from mesenteric ischemia and abdominal abscesses and resulted in prolonged HLOS. Further incorporating objective parameters into triage decisions in the EGS population may enhance prioritization accuracy, patient safety and resource utilization.

外科医生急诊腹部手术的优先级及其对术后结果的影响。
背景:急诊普通腹部手术(EGS)具有较高的发病率和死亡率。及时干预和有效的分诊系统对改善结果至关重要。本研究评估了外科医生的优先级和对分诊方案的遵守对术后结果的影响。方法:对2015年3月- 2022年12月在伯尔尼大学医院接受EGS治疗的患者进行单中心回顾性分析。根据手术的紧急程度将患者分为4个分类级别(1小时内1级,6小时内2级,12小时内3级,24小时内4级)。“违反协议”的定义是手术延误超过分诊级别的情况。根据Clavien-Dindo分类,主要终点包括有与没有“违反方案”的患者的并发症。结果:共纳入1 947例患者。从入院到手术的平均总延迟时间为分级1 69.5±127.5 min,分级2 206.5±178.0 min,分级3 350.6±282.6 min,分级4 693.4±354.8 min。1级和2级分诊与3级和4级分诊相比,并发症发生率显著增加(64% vs 43%; 11% vs 10%)。此外,“违反方案”导致肠系膜缺血和腹部脓肿患者的死亡率更高,并导致HLOS延长。进一步将客观参数纳入EGS人群的分诊决策中,可以提高优先排序的准确性、患者安全性和资源利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信