Overlapping Urological Surgeries at a Tertiary Academic Center.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the practice of procedure-time overlapping surgery (OS) is associated with inferior outcomes compared to nonoverlapping surgery (NOS) in urology, to address the paucity of data surrounding urologic surgeries to support or refute this practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all urological surgeries at a single tertiary-level academic center, Emory University Hospital, from July 2016 to July 2018. Patients who received OS were matched 1:2 to patients who had NOS. The primary outcomes were perioperative and postoperative complications and mortality. RESULTS: We reviewed 8535 urological surgeries. In-room time overlap was seen in 50.5% of cases and procedure-time overlap in 7.4%. Eleven out of the 13 attending urologists performed OS. The average time in the operating room was greater for OS by an average of 14 minutes. The average operative time was greater for OS than NOS by 11 minutes, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference between the cohorts for rate of blood transfusions, ICU stay, need for postoperative invasive procedures, length of postoperative hospital stay, discharge location, Emergency Room visits, hospital readmission rate, 30 and 90-day rates of postoperative complications, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Procedure-time overlapping surgeries constituted a minority of urological cases. OS were associated with greater in-room time. We found no increased risk of perioperative or postoperative adverse outcomes in OS compared to matched NOS.

Duke Scholars

Author Reza Nabavizadeh Urology