U Catena, A Biasioli, C Paglietti, V Tarantino, G Pellecchia, G Esposito, F Previtera, S Zermano, M Arcieri, A Graziano, G Dinoi, F Ciano, L Driul, G Draisci, F Fanfani, G Scambia, G Vizzielli, S Restaino
{"title":"妇科小手术患者术前常规实验室检测的实用性:对术中和术后并发症影响的中期分析。","authors":"U Catena, A Biasioli, C Paglietti, V Tarantino, G Pellecchia, G Esposito, F Previtera, S Zermano, M Arcieri, A Graziano, G Dinoi, F Ciano, L Driul, G Draisci, F Fanfani, G Scambia, G Vizzielli, S Restaino","doi":"10.52054/FVVO.16.3.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite discouragement from many scientific societies, routine preoperative testing remains a common practice. Minor gynaecological surgery, being widely performed in everyday practice, represents an opportunity for implementing cost-reduction policies by avoiding unnecessary diagnostic assessments.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess whether performing routine preoperative blood tests affects postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing minor gynaecological surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An interim subgroup analysis of a retrospective study conducted by Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli (Rome) and Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (Udine) was performed. Patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia were included. The studied population was divided based on the preoperative work up. Clinical data, surgical features and complications were collected.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Intraoperative and postoperative complications, healthcare expenditure in two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Subgroup analysis included 1191 patients in Centre A (Rome) who underwent routine complete preoperative tests and 500 patients in Centre B (Udine), who underwent exams only if indicated. Population characteristics were similar in two groups. Postoperative complications were observed in 1.2% and 1.4% of cases in Group A and Group B, respectively (p=0.70). Severe complications occurred in 0.3% of cases in Group A and 0.4% in Group B. Group B showed a cost saving of approximately 70 Euros per procedure (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preliminary data indicate that routine perioperative assessment did not reduce complication rates, hospital readmissions or surgical reinterventions. Given the high number of procedures, performing specific preoperative tests only when indicated may result in significant cost reduction.</p><p><strong>What is new?: </strong>This study selectively highlights the potential benefits to overall public health expenditure that could be achieved through stricter adherence to guidelines on preoperative assessment in minor gynaecological surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":46400,"journal":{"name":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","volume":"16 3","pages":"295-300"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11569433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utility of routine preoperative laboratory testing for patients undergoing minor gynaecologic surgical procedures: interim analysis of their impact on intraoperative and postoperative complications.\",\"authors\":\"U Catena, A Biasioli, C Paglietti, V Tarantino, G Pellecchia, G Esposito, F Previtera, S Zermano, M Arcieri, A Graziano, G Dinoi, F Ciano, L Driul, G Draisci, F Fanfani, G Scambia, G Vizzielli, S Restaino\",\"doi\":\"10.52054/FVVO.16.3.027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite discouragement from many scientific societies, routine preoperative testing remains a common practice. Minor gynaecological surgery, being widely performed in everyday practice, represents an opportunity for implementing cost-reduction policies by avoiding unnecessary diagnostic assessments.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess whether performing routine preoperative blood tests affects postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing minor gynaecological surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An interim subgroup analysis of a retrospective study conducted by Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli (Rome) and Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (Udine) was performed. Patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia were included. The studied population was divided based on the preoperative work up. Clinical data, surgical features and complications were collected.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Intraoperative and postoperative complications, healthcare expenditure in two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Subgroup analysis included 1191 patients in Centre A (Rome) who underwent routine complete preoperative tests and 500 patients in Centre B (Udine), who underwent exams only if indicated. Population characteristics were similar in two groups. Postoperative complications were observed in 1.2% and 1.4% of cases in Group A and Group B, respectively (p=0.70). Severe complications occurred in 0.3% of cases in Group A and 0.4% in Group B. Group B showed a cost saving of approximately 70 Euros per procedure (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preliminary data indicate that routine perioperative assessment did not reduce complication rates, hospital readmissions or surgical reinterventions. Given the high number of procedures, performing specific preoperative tests only when indicated may result in significant cost reduction.</p><p><strong>What is new?: </strong>This study selectively highlights the potential benefits to overall public health expenditure that could be achieved through stricter adherence to guidelines on preoperative assessment in minor gynaecological surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"295-300\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11569433/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.16.3.027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.16.3.027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:尽管许多科学协会不鼓励进行常规术前检查,但这种做法仍很普遍。妇科小手术在日常实践中广泛开展,通过避免不必要的诊断评估,为实施降低成本政策提供了机会:目的:评估常规术前血液检查是否会影响妇科小手术患者的术后并发症和成本效益:对Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli(罗马)和Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale(乌迪内)进行的一项回顾性研究进行了中期分组分析。研究对象包括在全身麻醉下接受手术的患者。研究对象根据术前检查结果进行划分。收集了临床数据、手术特征和并发症:两组患者的术中和术后并发症、医疗支出:亚组分析包括 A 中心(罗马)的 1191 名患者和 B 中心(乌迪内)的 500 名患者,前者接受了完整的术前常规检查,后者仅在有指征时接受检查。两组患者的特征相似。A组和B组分别有1.2%和1.4%的病例出现术后并发症(P=0.70)。严重并发症在 A 组和 B 组的发生率分别为 0.3% 和 0.4%。B 组每例手术节省成本约 70 欧元(p < 0.001):初步数据显示,常规围手术期评估并未降低并发症发生率、再入院率或手术再干预率。鉴于手术数量较多,只有在有必要时才进行特定的术前检查可能会显著降低成本:这项研究有选择性地强调了在妇科小手术中严格遵守术前评估指南可能会给公共卫生总支出带来的益处。
Utility of routine preoperative laboratory testing for patients undergoing minor gynaecologic surgical procedures: interim analysis of their impact on intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Background: Despite discouragement from many scientific societies, routine preoperative testing remains a common practice. Minor gynaecological surgery, being widely performed in everyday practice, represents an opportunity for implementing cost-reduction policies by avoiding unnecessary diagnostic assessments.
Objectives: To assess whether performing routine preoperative blood tests affects postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing minor gynaecological surgery.
Materials and methods: An interim subgroup analysis of a retrospective study conducted by Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli (Rome) and Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (Udine) was performed. Patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia were included. The studied population was divided based on the preoperative work up. Clinical data, surgical features and complications were collected.
Main outcome measures: Intraoperative and postoperative complications, healthcare expenditure in two groups.
Results: Subgroup analysis included 1191 patients in Centre A (Rome) who underwent routine complete preoperative tests and 500 patients in Centre B (Udine), who underwent exams only if indicated. Population characteristics were similar in two groups. Postoperative complications were observed in 1.2% and 1.4% of cases in Group A and Group B, respectively (p=0.70). Severe complications occurred in 0.3% of cases in Group A and 0.4% in Group B. Group B showed a cost saving of approximately 70 Euros per procedure (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Preliminary data indicate that routine perioperative assessment did not reduce complication rates, hospital readmissions or surgical reinterventions. Given the high number of procedures, performing specific preoperative tests only when indicated may result in significant cost reduction.
What is new?: This study selectively highlights the potential benefits to overall public health expenditure that could be achieved through stricter adherence to guidelines on preoperative assessment in minor gynaecological surgery.