Assessing the Precision of Surgery Duration Estimation: A Retrospective Study

Background

Among the many constituents of a hospital, the operating room (OR) is considered the highest source of profit and expenditure1 and the second costliest component of providing surgical services.2 Childers and Maggard-Gibbons assessed the financial reports of 302 hospitals in California and concluded that the average cost of one minute in the OR was $36 to $37, of which $20 to $21 were considered direct expenses.3 Therefore, improving OR efficiency reserves financial resources, enhances patient safety, expands OR capacity, and increases the satisfaction of both patients and healthcare providers.4,5

Underestimating the duration of surgery results in prolonged surgeries.6,7 On the contrary, overestimating the duration means that surgeries take less time than scheduled.6,7 Although both negatively impact efficiency, underestimation is more critical as it burdens financial resources and leads to staff frustration for working more hours.6 Furthermore, surgeons tend to overestimate the surgery duration to avoid taking longer than scheduled at the OR.7

There are different contributors to OR efficiency in healthcare organizations, healthcare providers, and patients.8 Healthcare organizations focus on “scheduling efficiency”, “financial efficiency”, and “operational efficiency”, which are directly influenced by healthcare providers through “practitioner-centered efficiency”.8 However, the most crucial contributor to OR efficiency is “patient-centered efficiency”, which includes meeting patients’ expectations and improving their clinical outcomes.8 Healey et al asserted that minimizing waste in OR time, lowering expenses, enhancing the quality of services provided, and realizing the impact of these three factors are the basis for maximizing OR efficiency.9

Measuring OR Efficiency

The OR is complex and exposed to various factors affecting workflow consistency.6 Rothstein and Raval sorted these factors starting with patient factors, such as last-minute cancellation, surgeon factors, such as the late start of surgery, and system factors, including lack of surgical equipment.5 Furthermore, Jeang and Chiang explained that the effort performed in the preoperative phase alone involves proper and accurate scheduling, equipment preparation, patient anesthesia, and prepping the theater and recovery room.10 Surprisingly, out of the 80 activities performed in providing a surgical service, Russ et al pointed out that only 18 were intraoperative, and 29 involved communications, whether between hospital departments or between the hospital and patient.11 Therefore, when aiming to measure OR efficiency, the previously explained OR nature and the factors affecting it require defining accurate and reliable metrics that evaluate efficiency objectively.11

The Canadian Pediatric Surgical Wait Times (CPSWT) Project defined metrics to evaluate OR efficiency, which many hospitals have adopt.12 Fixler and Wright listed the main metrics: “off-hours surgery, same-day cancellation rate, first case start-time accuracy, OR use, case duration accuracy, and average turnover time”.12 For example, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital recorded 5.7 hours wasted daily from the OR schedule due to same-day cancellations.13 In addition, six sigma was implemented in an academic center in the United States to improve the first case start time from 49% to 92%.14 In Saudi Arabia, Hassanain et al improved OR use in nine out of 12 hospitals, with one reaching an increase of 22% using the lean methodology.15 Similarly, in the United States, Cerfolio et al applied lean to significantly minimize the average turnover time from 37 to 14 minutes by eliminating 10% of unnecessary actions.16

Ubiali et al presented the operating room efficiency (ORE) metric to calculate the efficiency based on “Preparation Time (PT), Utilization Time (UT), Turnover Time (TT), Block Time, Overrun hours, and Cancelled Case Time (CCT)”.17 This metric is assumed to apply even to a limited amount of data; however, it must be validated before use.17 Conversely, Charlesworth and Pandit argued that TT is an inaccurate reflection of performance as the number of patients increases.18 In addition, TT hardly accounts for 15% of the OR schedule time; therefore, considering it in calculating the efficiency complicates the equation with little added benefit.18 The equation proposed by Charlesworth and Pandit was based on OR schedule estimation and presumed that optimal efficiency was achieved when all scheduled surgeries were completed in their designated duration.18 Additionally, exceeding the assigned surgery duration “over-run”, ending the surgery before its expected duration “under-run”, and same-day surgery cancellations were considered indicators of inefficiency.18

Surgery Duration Accuracy

Laskin et al reported that 42% of the surgery duration was overestimated, whereas 32% was underestimated by surgeons.19 Dexter and Epstein and Gómez-Ríos et al explained that underestimation means surgeries exceed their scheduled duration, which delays the start of the following surgeries or cancels them.6,7 In contrast, overestimating means that the surgery took less time than scheduled, wasting valuable minutes from the OR schedule.6,7 However, Gómez-Ríos et al stressed the necessity of reducing OR underestimation because its expense per hour is highly significant compared to overestimation.6

To improve scheduling accuracy, Bartek et al developed a machine learning (ML) model to predict surgery duration and increase the prediction accuracy to 39%.20 ML considers variables such as patient age, gender, clinical features, and the performing surgeon, which might affect the duration of the surgery, resulting in a more accurate and reliable estimation.21 Similarly, Tuwatananurak et al used ML models to achieve a 70% decrease in imprecise surgery scheduling within three months.21 Another study proposed a model using two linear regression methods that were significantly better than the system used by hospitals.22

Summary and Implications

Many studies have discussed OR efficiency and how surgery scheduling accuracy plays a vital role in increasing OR efficiency and reducing OR cancellation rate. Researchers have dedicated their efforts to increasing OR efficiency by improving surgery scheduling accuracy using advanced methods such as machine learning (ML) models. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there have not been any papers discussing OR efficiency regarding scheduling accuracy in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to evaluate OR efficiency. It evaluates the accuracy of surgery duration to determine whether surgeries exceeded their scheduled duration set by the surgeon “underestimation” or finished before the scheduled time set by the surgeon “overestimation”. Additionally, the study aimed to explore the factors effecting the accuracy of surgery duration, such as the surgical department, anesthesia type, and patient characteristics.

Research Methodology Research Design

This was a retrospective, quantitative study based on secondary data extracted from the OR database in the Hospital Information System (HIS) for both performed and canceled surgeries.

Variables

The variables used to assess the accuracy of surgery duration were patient age and gender, patient type, surgical division, anesthesia type, surgery month, surgery duration, and scheduled surgery duration.

Operational Definitions

Below in Table 1, each key term used in the study is explained.

Table 1 Definition of Key Terms

Study Setting

This study was conducted in the Quality and Patient Safety Department and the Operating Room (OR) department at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh.

Study Sample

All elective surgeries performed from the 1st of January 2017 to the 31st and December 2021, were included in the study. The total sample size was 97,397. Surgical departments were sorted into divisions to ensure a proper sample size for each department. In addition, departments with fewer than 50 surgeries in any year of the five-year study period were excluded. Patients with surgery without an OR entry time, OR exit time, or scheduled surgery duration were excluded.

Data Collection Methods Instruments

Elective surgeries performed from the 1st of January 2017 until the 31st of December 2021 were extracted from the HIS into an Excel sheet. Likewise, canceled surgeries from the 1st of January 2019 to the 31st of December 2021 were collected from the OR database in an Excel sheet to identify the variables, clean the data, and code it for analysis. The study period for surgery duration accuracy was chosen based on the availability of data in the HIS, which has higher accuracy and reliability than collecting it from manual records.

Procedure and Timeline

The first stage involved collecting and analyzing the accuracy of surgery duration using surgery data. After extracting the data from the HIS into an Excel spreadsheet, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The duration of each surgery was calculated in minutes by subtracting the time of leaving the OR from the time of entering the OR. Based on the scheduled duration, the calculated durations were categorized as either overestimation or underestimation. Finally, each independent variable was categorized and coded for analysis.

Ethical Consideration

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC) (H-01-R-005) and Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University Institutional Review Board (IRB-PGS-2022-01-119). As this is a retrospective study, it was practically difficult to obtain informed consent from the study participants to participant in the study. Therefore, the ethics committee of this study specifically waived the requirement for informed consent.

However, the researchers considered the importance of data anonymization prior to study commencement. Therefore, the OR management department removed any patients identifiable information, such as Patients’ names, from the dataset before handling it to the study researchers.

Analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 28.0.1.0. was used to analyze the numerical data. The descriptive analysis presented an overview of the accuracy of surgery duration. Bivariate analysis was performed using chi-square to test the difference between the independent variables: patient type, gender, age, surgery year, surgical division, anesthesia type, and OR estimation. Significance was determined with p values <= 0.05.

Results

The total number of surgeries performed from the 1st of January 2017 to the 31st of December 2021 was 97,397. In 2017, 16,964 surgeries were performed, 19,890 in 2018, and the number of surgeries continued to increase, reaching 20,334 surgeries in 2019. However, in 2020, the number dropped to 16,441 surgeries due to the COVID-19 pandemic and rose again to 23,768 surgeries in 2021. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the surgeries performed.

Table 2 Descriptive Results of the Performed Surgeries from 2017 to 2021

Fifty% of surgeries were performed on male patients, and most patients were aged > 60 years (23%) and 3–12 years (20%). Day operation patients were the most common type, accounting for 62%. Additionally, in 2021, a new type of patient was introduced as “same-day surgery”, but it accounted for only 0.7% of the total patients.

Moreover, general surgery (30%), pediatric surgery (15%), and ENT (14.0%) had the highest number of surgeries performed. At the same time, the adult organ transplant, hepatobiliary surgery, and neurosurgery divisions had the lowest rate of surgeries performed during all years (<2%). In addition, general anesthesia was the most commonly used anesthesia type, reaching 82%; conversely, nerve block and spine/epidural (<1%) were the least used.

From 2017 to 2021, more than 60% of surgeries were performed before their scheduled duration (overestimation), and the median duration of overestimation was 29. Consequently, the rate of surgeries exceeding their duration was 37% (overestimation) and the median duration of underestimation was 30.

Statistical Differences Between Independent Variables and Surgery Duration Accuracy

The following paragraphs present the results of testing the significance of the difference between the study’s independent variables and their surgery duration accuracy. Table 3 summarizes the findings of the bivariate analysis.

Table 3 Bivariate Analysis Results of the Independent Variables and the or Utilization

There was a statistically significant difference between the surgeries performed on males and females in terms of OR accuracy duration (p <0.00). Surgeries performed on females presented better estimation, with only 35% of surgeries being underestimated throughout the five-year study period (Table 3).

There was a statistically significant difference between age groups and their OR accuracy duration (p =0.00). For example, patients aged 3–12 years had the highest rate of overestimated surgeries, reaching around 71%. However, for patients aged between 40 and 59 years, the underestimation was 40% (Table 2).

Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference between patient types and their OR accuracy duration (p =0.00). Day-operation patients had the highest rate of overestimation (around 69%). In contrast, although around 54% of surgeries performed on inpatients were overestimated, it was the lowest compared with the others (Table 3).

There was a statistically significant difference in OR accuracy duration between the surgical divisions (p =0.00). Specifically, around 74% of surgeries in the adult organ transplant and hepatobiliary surgery divisions were underestimated, 67% in cardiac surgery, and 55% in orthopedics. In contrast, ENT (75%), oral and maxillofacial (72%), and ophthalmology (71%) presented the highest rates of overestimation.

Finally, there was a statistically significant difference between anesthesia types in terms of OR accuracy duration (p =0.00). First, topical anesthesia had the highest overestimation rate (> 90%), followed by spine anesthesia (80%). Conversely, spinal/epidural anesthesia had the highest underestimation rate, with 55% (Table 3).

Testing the Statistical Difference Among the Age and Hospital Departments

Below are the results of further testing the differences in the independent variables to clearly understand and justify the results. There was a statistically significant difference between gender and surgical divisions (p-value=0.00). Male patients went through adult organ transplant and hepatobiliary surgery (68%), cardiac (60%), and pediatric surgery (63%) more than females, Table 4.

Table 4 Bivariate Analysis Results of the Patient Gender and the Surgical Divisions and Patient Types

There was a statistically significant difference between gender and patient type (p-value=<0.00). More than 50% of day operation surgeries were performed on males, whereas 55% of in-patient surgeries were performed on females, Table 4.

Discussion

As OR services are one of the highest costing services provided in a hospital and require effort from multidisciplinary teams, evaluating OR efficiency and continuously improving it significantly impacts hospital workflow and resources. This study aimed to evaluate the OR efficiency by measuring the accuracy of surgery duration.

To assess the accuracy of the case duration, 97,397 surgeries were analyzed from 2017 to 2021. Overestimation exceeded 60%, with a median of 28 min, whereas underestimation was 37%, with a median of 30 min. Although over half of the surgeries were overestimated, this is still a waste of valuable OR time. Therefore, understanding the factors affecting the surgery duration and improving the scheduling procedure to consider these factors enhances OR efficiency and reduces cost. In our study, patient characteristics, surgical divisions, and anesthesia types varied significantly in terms of the OR estimation.

Procedures done on female patients had lower overestimation than those on males by 3%. This was supported by a few studies stating that male surgeries took longer than scheduled.23,24 In addition, many successful experiences in improving scheduling method accuracy have led to the development of machine learning (ML) models using patient characteristics.20,21,25–29 A study stated that gender had a significant impact on surgery duration, where male surgeries had 7.5 minutes more than female surgeries.25 On the other hand, few papers have discussed the factors leading to unforeseen intraoperative complications that might prolong surgery duration. Therefore, the findings were indecisive and varied among surgical procedures on whether gender significantly contributed.30–36 For example, women are more prone to hypothermia during knee or hip replacement surgery,33 whereas no difference was found between gender in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.35

To further understand our findings, we tested the rate of gender among the surgical divisions, which differed significantly. More than half of the patients in the surgical divisions with the highest rate of underestimation were males. For example, adult organ transplant and hepatobiliary surgery accounted for 74% of the underestimated surgeries, and 68% of the patients were male. Similarly, 67% of cardiac surgeries exceeded their scheduled duration, and 60% of the patients were male. Interestingly, one study reported that females had a lower chance of undergoing cardiac valve replacement surgery.37 Therefore, the 3% variation in estimation in our findings could be attributed to the performance of the surgical division rather than gender influencing the surgery duration.

In addition, surgeries performed on patients between 20 and 29 years and above 50 years had either 40% or more underestimation, which correlates with the published findings stating that older patients did encounter prolonged surgeries.38–40 A study revealed that surgeries performed on patients older than 65 years had 6 minutes increase in nonoperative time.39 In addition to gender, age is essential in improving the accuracy of predicting surgery duration.20,21,25–29,41 Additionally, a few papers concluded that older patients had a higher tendency for intraoperative complications, which might justify the longer durations.31,35,36,42 However, this cannot be generalized as the complications vary among the various types of surgeries that have not been sufficiently covered in the literature. For example, older patients had a higher chance of intraoperative hypotension,36 but were not reported to be at risk of intraoperative blood loss.34

Additionally, surgeries performed on inpatients presented the least overestimation compared to day operation patients and same-day surgery patients. Similarly, it was found that surgeries performed on inpatients differed significantly by prolonged duration compared to other patients.43–46 A study noted 30 minutes increase in inpatient surgeries compared to outpatients.46 Other studies have pointed out that in-patients who are male, older, or have a high body mass index (BMI)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class could be classified as the main contributors to prolonged surgeries.23,28,47,48 In contrast, we found that 55% of inpatient surgeries were performed in females. However, testing other features such as BMI and ASA might reveal other correlations, as they were found to significantly affect surgery duration.25,30,39,43,49

Furthermore, all surgeries performed with local anesthesia (spinal, topical, nerve block), except spinal/epidural, outperformed surgeries performed with general anesthesia (GA) by at least 16% (nerve block) and reached 34% (topical) in overestimation. Additionally, Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC), in which sedatives and/or local anesthesia are administered,50 has higher overestimation than GA. Similar findings were found in the literature discussing the impact of the type of anesthesia administered on surgical duration. For example, a study noted a significant decrease of 40% in nonsurgical time when using local anesthesia and 20% when applying MAC over GA.51 Another study on hip fractures found that GA surgeries were 30 min longer than local anesthesia.52 Additionally, another revealed that local anesthesia decreased perioperative care by 2.1 days over the GA.53

Likewise, other studies compared spinal anesthesia (SA) to GA, in which surgeries administering SA presented a significantly shorter duration of 54 minutes in one;54 however, it did not in the other.55 Pierce et al, added other findings, such as that blood loss and length of hospital stay were lower in SA.54 Similarly, SA presented a significantly higher overestimation of almost 20% than GA in the current study. In contrast, a study found that GA required less time to start surgery than SA (15 min vs 20 min, respectively).55 Finally, our findings showed that spinal/epidural or epidural anesthesia (EA) had the highest rate of underestimation. This contradicts the findings of Ulutas et al, who stated that although the time taken to perform the surgery did not differ between EA and GA, the total OR duration was shorter in EA.56

Finally, surgical divisions differed significantly in their performance. The adult organ transplant and hepatobiliary surgery and cardiac and orthopedic surgery divisions exceeded their scheduled durations, reaching 73% in adult organ transplant and hepatobiliary surgery. Undoubtedly, the complexity of the surgery and the patient’s condition directly affect the duration of surgery.21,39,41,43 In the current study setting, most surgeries performed by these divisions were complex because of the advanced patient’s condition; thus, they required longer durations. One study explained two causes of variability in the duration of surgery. One is the “Uncertainty” regarding uncontrolled, unexpected factors, such as complications. The other cause of variability is the “Diversity of Situation”, related to identifiable factors such as patient characteristics, performing surgeon, and hospital resources.57 Therefore, it is necessary to improve the surgical scheduling method to consider the remarkable variations among patients, surgery types, and even the performing surgeon.

Study Strength and Limitations

The strength of this study was the inclusion of a remarkable amount of data representing each independent variable. Additionally, these data were extracted from the HIS, excluding the chance of error, and supporting its accuracy and reliability. However, this study retrospectively analyzed independent factors and their impact on OR estimation. Therefore, analyzing additional factors such as BMI, ASA, and patient clinical condition with multivariable testing would help to provide further understanding of how these known factors affect surgery duration. Other aspects of the OR workflow have not been studied. For example, calculating the time of each stage in the surgery defines the pain points at which the time is mostly wasted.

Practical and Research Implications

It is recommended to use artificial intelligence methods, such as machine learning (ML) models to include patient characteristics, department, anesthesia type, and the performing surgeon in order to increase the accuracy of surgery duration estimation. It is also recommended to evaluate the performance of an ML model in future studies. In addition, it is recommended to improve the preoperative assessment by reassessing patients and contacting them for confirmation before surgery ensures the patient’s readiness.

Conclusion

This study evaluated the OR efficiency by measuring the surgery duration accuracy. The majority of the surgeries performed were overestimated; this means that valuable minutes of the OR schedule were booked and wasted. The findings of this study provide insight into the importance of enhancing the surgical scheduling methods.

Data Sharing Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. DeChancie SM, Hudson ME. Operating room management. Basic Clin Anesth. 2015;667–670. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1737-2_56

2. Stey AM, Brook RH, Needleman J, et al. Hospital costs by cost center of inpatient hospitalization for medicare patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(2):207–217.e11. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.10.021

3. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233

4. Dyas AR, Lovell KM, Balentine CJ, et al. Reducing cost and improving operating room efficiency: examination of surgical instrument processing. J Surg Res. 2018;229:15–19. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.038

5. Rothstein DH, Raval MV. Operating room efficiency. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2018;27(2):79–85. doi:10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2018.02.004

6. Gómez-Ríos MA, Abad-Gurumeta A, Casans-Francés R, et al. Keys to optimizing operating room efficiency. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2019;66(2):104–112. doi:10.1016/j.redar.2018.08.002

7. Dexter F, Epstein RH. Operating room efficiency and scheduling. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2005;18(2):195–198. doi:10.1097/01.aco.0000162840.02087.15

8. Archer T, Macario A. The drive for operating room efficiency will increase the quality of patient care. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006;19(2):171–176. doi:10.1097/01.aco.0000192796.02797.82

9. Healey T, El-Othmani MM, Healey J, et al. Improving operating room efficiency, part 1. JBJS Rev. 2015;3(10):1. doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.n.00109

10. Jeang A, Chiang AJ. Economic and quality scheduling for effective utilization of operating rooms. J Med Syst. 2012;36(3):1205–1222. doi:10.1007/s10916-010-9582-0

11. Russ S, Arora S, Wharton R, et al. Measuring safety and efficiency in the operating room: development and validation of a metric for evaluating task execution in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(3):472–481. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.013

12. Fixler T, Wright JG. Identification and use of operating room efficiency indicators: the problem of definition. Can J Surg. 2013;56(4):224–226. doi:10.1503/cjs.020712

13. Pratap JN, Varughese AM, Mercurio P, et al. Reducing cancelations on the day of scheduled surgery at a children’s hospital. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):e1292–1299. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2418

14. Phieffer L, Hefner JL, Rahmanian A, et al. Improving operating room efficiency: first case on-time start project. J Healthc Qual. 2017;39(5):e70–e78. doi:10.1097/jhq.0000000000000018

15. Hassanain M, Zamakhshary M, Farhat G, et al. Use of lean methodology to improve operating room efficiency in hospitals across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2016;32(2):133–146. doi:10.1002/hpm.2334

16. Cerfolio RJ, Ferrari-Light D, Ren-Fielding C, et al. Improving operating room turnover time in a New York City academic hospital via lean. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(4):1011–1016. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.11.071

17. Ubiali A, Perger P, Rochira A, et al. Operating room efficiency measurement made simple by a single metric. Ann Ig. 2021;33(1):100–102. doi:10.7416/ai.2021.2411

18. Charlesworth M, Pandit JJ. Rational performance metrics for operating theatres, principles of efficiency, and how to achieve it. Br J Surg. 2020;107(2):e63–e69. doi:10.1002/bjs.11396

19. Laskin DM, Abubaker AO, Strauss RA. Accuracy of predicting the duration of a surgical operation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(2):446–447. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2012.10.009

20. Bartek MA, Saxena RC, Solomon S, et al. Improving operating room efficiency: machine learning approach to predict case-time duration. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(4):346–354.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.05.029

21. Tuwatananurak JP, Zadeh S, Xu X, et al. Machine learning can improve estimation of surgical case duration: a pilot study. J Med Syst. 2019;43(3):44. doi:10.1007/s10916-019-1160-5

22. Hosseini N, Sir MY, Jankowski CJ, Pasupathy KS. Surgical duration estimation via data mining and predictive modeling: a case study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015;2015:640–648.

23. Kafle S, Torabi SJ, Salehi PP, et al. Pediatric otoplasty: differences in operative time and inpatient stay based on surgical specialty training. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(1):367–369. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007016

24. Patoir A, Payet C, Peix J-L, et al. Determinants of operative time in thyroid surgery: a prospective multicenter study of 3454 thyroidectomies. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181424. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181424

25. Thiels CA, Yu D, Abdelrahman AM, et al. The use of patient factors to improve the prediction of operative duration using laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):333–340. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4976-9

26. Strömblad CT, Baxter-King RG, Meisami A, et al. Effect of a predictive model on planned surgical duration accuracy, patient wait time, and use of presurgical resources: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(4):315–321. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6361

27. Dexter F, Epstein RH, Marian AA. Case duration prediction and estimating time remaining in ongoing cases. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(5):751–755. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.002

28. Jiao Y, Xue B, Lu C, et al. Continuous real-time prediction of surgical case duration using a modular artificial neural network. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(5):829–837. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2021.12.039

29. Martinez O, Martinez C, Parra CA, et al. Machine learning for surgical time prediction. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021;208:106220. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106220

30. Hinds R, Fiedler D, Capo J, et al. Factors affecting operative duration in isolated open carpal tunnel release. J Wrist Surg. 2018;08(02):108–111. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1672154

31. Hashemi H, Rezvan F, Etemad K, et al. Intraoperative complications of cataract surgery in Tehran Province, Iran. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93(3):266–271. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000795

32. Sen RD, White-Dzuro G, Ruzevick J, et al. Intra- and perioperative complications associated with endoscopic spine surgery: a multi-institutional study. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:e1054–e1060. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.009

33. Frisch NB, Pepper AM, Rooney E, et al. Intraoperative hypothermia in total hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2016;40(1):56–63. doi:10.3928/01477447-20161017-04

34. Song JS, Sun JJ, Sun YE, et al. 青少年特发性脊柱侧凸后路矫形术中大量失血的危险因素分析 [Risk factors of massive intraoperative blood loss in posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021;101(14):1002–1008. Chinese. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20200924-02710

35. Li Y, Liang H, Feng Y. Prevalence and multivariable factors associated with inadvertent intraoperative hypothermia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1). doi:10.1186/s12871-020-0953-x

36. Südfeld S, Brechnitz S, Wagner JY, et al. Post-induction hypotension and early intraoperative hypotension associated with general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(1):57–64. doi:10.1093/bja/aex127

37. Bansal A, Cremer PC, Jaber WA, et al. Sex differences in the utilization and outcomes of cardiac valve replacement surgery for infective endocarditis: insights from the national inpatient sample. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(20):e020095. doi:10.1161/JAHA.120.020095

38. Morgenegg R, Heinze F, Wieferich K, et al. Discrepancies between planned and actual operating room turnaround times at a large rural hospital in Germany. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2018;17(4):418. doi:10.18295/squmj.2017.17.04.007

39. Puffer RC, Mallory GW, Burrows AM, et al. Patient and procedural factors that influence anesthetized, nonoperative time in spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2015;6(5):447–451. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1564808

40. Senker W, Gruber A, Gmeiner M, et al. Surgical and clinical results of minimally invasive spinal fusion surgery in an unselected patient cohort of a spinal care unit. Orthop Surg. 2018;10(3):192–197. doi:10.1111/os.12397

41. Luedi MM, Kauf P, Mulks L, et al. Implications of patient age and ASA physical status for operating room management decisions. Anesth Analg. 2016;122(4):1169–1177. doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001187

42. Sayed N, Bakathir A, Pasha M, et al. Complications of third molar extraction: a retrospective study from a tertiary healthcare centre in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2019;19(3):e230–e235. doi:10.18295/squmj.2019.19.03.009

43. Meneveau MO, Mehaffey JH, Turrentine FE, et al. Patient and personnel factors affect operating room start times. Surgery. 2020;167(2):390–395. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2019.08.011

44. Ali B, Choi EE, Barlas V, et al. Inpatient versus outpatient operative management of isolated facial fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(4):1338–1340. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007387

45. Gao M, Zeng F, Zhu Z, et al. Day care surgery versus in-patient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2020;81:132–139. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.056

46. Kadhim M, Gans I, Baldwin K, et al. Do surgical times and efficiency differ between inpatient and ambulatory surgery centers that are both hospital owned? J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36(4):423–428. doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000454

47. Kelly MP, Calkins TE, Culvern C, et al. Inpatient versus outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty: which has higher patient satisfaction? J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(11):3402–3406. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.07.025

48. Snowden R, Fischer D, Kraemer P. Early outcomes and safety of outpatient (surgery center) vs in-patient based L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;73:183–186. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2019.11.001

49. Athanasiadis DI, Monfared S, Whiteside J, et al. What delays your case start? Exploring operating room inefficiencies. Surg Endosc. 2020. doi:10.1007/s00464-020-07701-6

50. Ghisi D, Fanelli A, Tosi M, et al. Monitored anesthesia care. Minerva Anestesiol. 2005;71(9):533–538.

51. Caggiano NM, Avery DM, Matullo KS. The effect of anesthesia type on nonsurgical operating room time. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(6):1202–1209.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.01.037

52. Rashid RH, Shah AA, Shakoor A, et al. Hip fracture surgery: does type of anesthesia matter? Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:252356. doi:10.1155/2013/252356

53. Nishi T, Maeda T, Imatoh T, et al. Comparison of regional with general anesthesia on mortality and perioperative length of stay in older patients after hip fracture surgery. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzy233

54. Pierce J, Kositratna G, Attiah M, et al. Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients. Local Reg Anesth. 2017;10:91–98. doi:10.2147/lra.s141233

55. Capdevila X, Aveline C, Delaunay L, et al. Factors determining the choice of spinal versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery: results of a multicenter observational study. Adv Ther. 2020;37(1):527–540. doi:10.1007/s12325-019-01171-6

56. Ulutas M, Secer M, Taskapilioglu O, et al. General versus epidural anesthesia for lumbar microdiscectomy. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(8):1309–1313. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.02.018

57. Fügener A, Schiffels S, Kolisch R. Overutilization and underutilization of operating rooms - insights from behavioral health care operations management. Health Care Manag Sci. 2017;20(1):115–128. doi:10.1007/s10729-015-9343-1

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif