TY - JOUR
T1 - The Impact of Exclusively Virtual Preoperative Evaluation on Complications of Gynecologic Surgery
AU - Schneyer, Rebecca J.
AU - Meyer, Raanan
AU - Hamilton, Kacey M.
AU - Truong, Mireille D.
AU - Wright, Kelly N.
AU - Siedhoff, Matthew T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 AAGL
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Study Objective: To evaluate the impact of virtual versus in-person preoperative evaluation on perioperative complication rates in a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) practice. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Quaternary care academic hospital in the United States. Participants: Patients who underwent surgery with a MIGS surgeon between January 2016 and May 2023. Interventions: Patients underwent either in-person or virtual preoperative visits (defined as the initial consultation and any subsequent follow-up or preoperative counseling visits). Those who had both an in-person and virtual preoperative visit were excluded. Complication rates among the virtual and in-person cohorts were compared, and logistic regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders. Results: The analysis included 2,947 patients, 1196 (40.6%) with exclusively virtual preoperative visits and 1751 (59.4%) with exclusively in-person visits. Following the implementation of telemedicine in 3/2020, 80.6% of patients had all their preoperative visits conducted virtually via videoconference. Surgical approach included conventional laparoscopy (78.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (3.8%), laparotomy (2.1%), and other gynecologic procedures without abdominal entry (15.3%). The most common procedures were endometriosis excision (43.1%), myomectomy (34.0%), and hysterectomy (24.8%). Composite perioperative complication rates were similar between cohorts (5.9% virtual vs 6.3% in-person, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–1.17). There were no significant differences for major complications (2.3% virtual vs 1.2% in-person, aOR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85–2.74) or minor complications (5.7% virtual vs 6.1% in-person, aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59–1.19). Conversion to laparotomy was rare in both groups (0.1% virtual vs 0.2% in-person). Conclusion: Implementation of virtual preoperative visits within a MIGS practice did not impact composite surgical complication rates. For subspecialized gynecologic surgeons, a virtual preoperative evaluation may offer a safe alternative to the traditional in-person visit.
AB - Study Objective: To evaluate the impact of virtual versus in-person preoperative evaluation on perioperative complication rates in a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) practice. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Quaternary care academic hospital in the United States. Participants: Patients who underwent surgery with a MIGS surgeon between January 2016 and May 2023. Interventions: Patients underwent either in-person or virtual preoperative visits (defined as the initial consultation and any subsequent follow-up or preoperative counseling visits). Those who had both an in-person and virtual preoperative visit were excluded. Complication rates among the virtual and in-person cohorts were compared, and logistic regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders. Results: The analysis included 2,947 patients, 1196 (40.6%) with exclusively virtual preoperative visits and 1751 (59.4%) with exclusively in-person visits. Following the implementation of telemedicine in 3/2020, 80.6% of patients had all their preoperative visits conducted virtually via videoconference. Surgical approach included conventional laparoscopy (78.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (3.8%), laparotomy (2.1%), and other gynecologic procedures without abdominal entry (15.3%). The most common procedures were endometriosis excision (43.1%), myomectomy (34.0%), and hysterectomy (24.8%). Composite perioperative complication rates were similar between cohorts (5.9% virtual vs 6.3% in-person, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–1.17). There were no significant differences for major complications (2.3% virtual vs 1.2% in-person, aOR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85–2.74) or minor complications (5.7% virtual vs 6.1% in-person, aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59–1.19). Conversion to laparotomy was rare in both groups (0.1% virtual vs 0.2% in-person). Conclusion: Implementation of virtual preoperative visits within a MIGS practice did not impact composite surgical complication rates. For subspecialized gynecologic surgeons, a virtual preoperative evaluation may offer a safe alternative to the traditional in-person visit.
KW - COVID-19
KW - Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery
KW - Pelvic examination
KW - Safety
KW - Telemedicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85214517238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.012
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 39613184
AN - SCOPUS:85214517238
SN - 1553-4650
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
ER -