Assessing Public-Reported Perceptions of Low-Risk Hand Surgery Provided in the Office Versus an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Survey Study

J Hand Surg Glob Online. 2024 Jun 11;6(5):619-626. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.05.001. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: There is growing evidence for the safety of wide-awake, office-based, low-risk hand surgery. However, there is limited insight into patient receptiveness to these procedures. Here, we evaluate the public perceptions and degree of tolerance of low-risk, office-based hand surgery.

Methods: A prospective study was performed using a 26-question, paid survey via a clinically validated, public, online marketplace. Participants were divided based on (pre-education) perceptions of in-office hand surgery into three cohorts as follows: in-office surgery (IOS), no in-office surgery, or no preference (NP). Educational material was then presented comparing three surgical settings and anesthetic types. Then, participants selected their setting/anesthetic preferences for the following four procedures: trigger finger release, cyst excision, carpal tunnel release, and distal radius fracture. Statistical analyses with unpaired t tests and chi-square tests were performed. P < .05 was significant.

Results: There were 509 respondents-266 in the IOS group, 104 in the no in-office surgery group, and 139 in the NP group. Previous outpatient surgery was most frequent in the IOS cohort. In-office surgery and NP cohorts were more likely to believe that surgical procedures could be performed in the clinic setting. The remaining demographics were similar across cohorts. After reviewing the education graphic, 50 of the 139 in the NP group switched to prefer IOS. For procedure-specific questioning, 40.6% (207/509) were amenable to in-office trigger finger release and 58.3% (297/509) for cyst excision, unlike more invasive procedures (carpal tunnel release: 25.6% (130/509); distal radius fracture: 9.8% (50/509). The most influential factors determining surgical location were comfort during the procedure and total encounter time. The IOS group favored location to be at the surgeon's discretion more than the no in-office surgery group.

Conclusions: In-office, low-risk, hand surgery appears desirable to select patients. If presented with the option for in-office trigger finger release or cyst excision, approximately 40.6% (207/509) and 58.3% (297/509), respectively, may be amenable to IOS.

Type of study/level of evidence: Prospective IB.

Keywords: Hand; Low-risk; Office; Perception; Surgery.