4.6 Article

Unplanned readmission following transoral robotic surgery

Journal

ORAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 75, Issue -, Pages 127-132

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.11.009

Keywords

Transoral robotic surgery; Unplanned readmission; Bleeding; Dehydration; Oropharyngeal cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To determine the rate of unplanned readmission after transoral robotic surgery (TORS), and to determine which patient or surgical factors increase the likelihood of readmission. Materials and methods: Retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent TORS for squamous cell carcinoma at our institution from March 2010 through July 2016. Primary outcome was unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for unplanned readmission. Results: 297 patients met eligibility criteria. 23 patients (7.7%) had unplanned readmissions within 30 days. Most common reasons for readmission were oropharyngeal bleed (n= 13) and pain/dehydration (n= 10). Average time to unplanned readmission was 6.52 days (range 0-25 days). Discharge on clopidogrel was the only variable independently associated with an increased risk of 30-day unplanned readmission on multivariable analysis with an OR=6.85 (95% CI 1.59-26.36). Unplanned return to the operating room during initial hospitalization (OR=7.55, 95% CI 1.26-38.50) and discharge on clopidogrel (OR=10.45, 95% CI 1.06-82.69) were associated with increased risk of postoperative bleeding. Bilateral neck dissection (OR=5.17, 95% CI 1.15-23.08) was associated with significantly increased odds of unplanned readmission secondary to pain and dehydration. Conclusion: Unplanned readmission following TORS occurs in a small but significant number of patients. Oropharyngeal bleeding and dehydration were the most common reasons for unplanned readmission following TORS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available