Operating theatre time, where does it all go? A prospective observational study

Objective To assess the accuracy of surgeons and anaesthetists in predicting the time it will take them to complete an operation or procedure and therefore explain some of the difficulties encountered in operating theatre scheduling. Design Single centre, prospective observational study. Setting Plastic, orthopaedic, and general surgical operating theatres at a level 1 trauma centre serving a population of about 370 000. Participants 92 operating theatre staff including surgical consultants, surgical registrars, anaesthetic consultants, and anaesthetic registrars. Intervention Participants were asked how long they thought their procedure would take. These data were compared with actual time data recorded at the end of the case. Primary outcome measure Absolute difference between predicted and actual time. Results General surgeons underestimated the time required for the procedure by 31 minutes (95% confidence interval 7.6 to 54.4), meaning that procedures took, on average, 28.7% longer than predicted. Plastic surgeons underestimated by 5 minutes (−12.4 to 22.4), with procedures taking an average of 4.5% longer than predicted. Orthopaedic surgeons overestimated by 1 minute (−16.4 to 14.0), with procedures taking an average of 1.1% less time than predicted. Anaesthetists underestimated by 35 minutes (21.7 to 48.7), meaning that, on average, procedures took 167.5% longer than they predicted. The four specialty mean time overestimations or underestimations are significantly different from each other (P=0.01). The observed time differences between anaesthetists and both orthopaedic and plastic surgeons are significantly different (P<0.05), but the time difference between anaesthetists and general surgeons is not significantly different. Conclusion The inability of clinicians to predict the necessary time for a procedure is a significant cause of delay in the operating theatre. This study suggests that anaesthetists are the most inaccurate and highlights the potential differences between specialties in what is considered part of the “anaesthesia time.

Revision total hip replacement using the cement-in-cement technique for the acetabular component: Technique and results for 60 hips

The technique of femoral cement-in-cement revision is well established, but there are no previous series reporting its use on the acetabular side at the time of revision total hip arthroplasty. We describe the surgical technique and report the outcome of 60 consecutive cement-in-cement revisions of the acetabular component at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (range 5-12 years). All had a radiologically and clinically well fixed acetabular cement mantle at the time of revision. 29 patients died. No case was lost to follow-up. The 2 most common indications for acetabular revision were recurrent dislocation (77%) and to compliment a femoral revision (20%). There were 2 cases of aseptic cup loosening (3.3%) requiring re-revision. No other hip was clinically or radiologically loose (96.7%) at latest follow-up. One case was re-revised for infection, 4 for recurrent dislocation and 1 for disarticulation of a constrained component. At 5 years, the Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 100% for aseptic loosening and 92.2% (95% CI; 84.8-99.6%) with revision for all causes as the endpoint. These results support the use of the cement-in-cement revision technique in appropriate cases on the acetabular side. Theoretical advantages include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, reduced risk of complications and durable fixation