No abstract

Continuous and sustained improvement of first case on-time starts is attributed to tracking the FCOS metric, establishing embedded process improvement resources and creating transparency of data. This article highlights success factors and barriers to program success and sustainability.

Background Closed‐incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPT) has shown promising effects for managing infected wounds. This meta‐analysis explores the current state of knowledge on ciNPT in orthopedics and addresses whether ciNPT at −125 mmHg or −80 mmHg or conventional dressing reduces the incidence of surgical site complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods This meta‐analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane Handbook. Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ciNPT use compared to conventional dressings following hip and knee surgeries were considered for inclusion. Non‐stratified and stratified meta‐analyses of six RCTs were conducted to test for confounding and biases. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant. Results The included six RCTs have 611 patients. Total hip and knee arthroplasties were performed for 51.7% and 48.2% of the included population, respectively. Of 611 patients, conventional dressings were applied in 315 patients and 296 patients received ciNPT. Two ciNPT systems have been used across the six RCTs; PREVENA Incision Management System (−125 mmHg) (63.1%) and PICO dressing (−80 mmHg) (36.8%). The non‐stratified analysis showed that the ciNPT system had a statistically significant, lower risk of persistent wound drainage as compared to conventional dressing following total hip and knee arthroplasties (OR = 0.28; P = .002). There was no difference between ciNPT and conventional dressings in terms of wound hematoma, blistering, seroma, and dehiscence. The stratified meta‐analysis indicated that patients undergoing treatment with high‐pressure ciNPT (120 mmHg) displayed significantly fewer overall complications and persistent wound drainage (P = .00001 and P = .002, respectively) when compared to low‐pressure ciNPT (80 mmHg) and conventional dressings. In addition, ciNPT is associated with shorter hospital stays. (P = .005). Conclusion When compared to conventional wound dressing and −80 mmHg ciNPT, the use of −125 mmHg ciNPT is recommended in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty.

The objective of this study was to describe in detail the technique of total pelvic exenteration. Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) was first described in 1948 by Brunschwig. Since its description, complications of the procedure and surgical innovations have changed the approach to this radical surgery. We have described our institutional approach and outcomes of TPE. Fifty-four patients underwent TPE between 2004 and 2010 by the Division of Surgical Oncology at the Ohio State University Medical Center. Fifty-three patients have complete medical records available for review. Outcomes are described and have shaped these techniques. Patients were divided into various groups based on their histology: colorectal (n = 36), gynecologic (n = 6), urologic (n = 5), squamous cell (n = 2), sarcomatous disease (n = 3), and severe infections (n = 1). These were divided into two groups—colorectal (n = 36) and noncolorectal (n = 17)—for analysis. Demographics, operative time, length of stay, and complication rates were similar between the two groups. The median survival was 21.4 months for the colorectal group and 6.9 months for the noncolorectal group. Total pelvic exenteration for colorectal tumors has improved survival when compared with patients undergoing exenteration for pelvic malignancies of other origins. Total pelvic exenteration continues to be associated with high morbidity; however, with appropriate patient selection and proper operative technique, a perioperative mortality of 0 per cent can be achieved.