Predictive methods for surgery duration explained

Predictions of surgery duration (SD) are used to schedule planned/elective surgeries so that utilization rate of operating theatres be optimized (maximized subject to policy constraints). An example for a constraint is that a pre-specified tolerance for the percentage of postponed surgeries (due to non-available operating room (OR) or recovery room space) not be exceeded. The tight linkage between SD prediction and surgery scheduling is the reason that most often scientific research related to scheduling methods addresses also SD predictive methods and vice versa. Durations of surgeries are known to have large variability. Therefore, SD predictive methods attempt, on the one hand, to reduce variability (via stratification and covariates, as detailed later), and on the other employ best available methods to produce SD predictions. The more accurate the predictions, the better the scheduling of surgeries (in terms of the required OR utilization optimization).

An SD predictive method would ideally deliver a predicted SD statistical distribution (specifying the distribution and estimating its parameters). Once SD distribution is completely specified, various desired types of information could be extracted thereof, for example, the most probable duration (mode), or the probability that SD does not exceed a certain threshold value. In less ambitious circumstance, the predictive method would at least predict some of the basic properties of the distribution, like location and scale parameters (mean, median, mode, standard deviation or coefficient of variation, CV). Certain desired percentiles of the distribution may also be the objective of estimation and prediction. Experts estimates, empirical histograms of the distribution (based on historical computer records), data mining and knowledge discovery techniques often replace the ideal objective of fully specifying SD theoretical distribution.

Reducing SD variability prior to prediction (as alluded to earlier) is commonly regarded as part and parcel of SD predictive method. Most probably, SD has, in addition to random variation, also a systematic component, namely, SD distribution may be affected by various related factors (like medical specialty, patient condition or age, professional experience and size of medical team, number of surgeries a surgeon has to perform in a shift, type of anesthetic administered). Accounting for these factors (via stratification or covariates) would diminish SD variability and enhance the accuracy of the predictive method. Incorporating expert estimates (like those of surgeons) in the predictive model may also contribute to diminish the uncertainty of data-based SD prediction. Often, statistically significant covariates (also related to as factors, predictors or explanatory variables) — are first identified (for example, via simple techniques like linear regression and knowledge discovery), and only later more advanced big-data techniques are employed, like Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, to produce the final prediction.

Literature reviews of studies addressing surgeries scheduling most often also address related SD predictive methods. Here are some examples (latest first).[1] [2] [3] [4]

The rest of this entry review various perspectives associated with the process of producing SD predictions — SD statistical distributions, Methods to reduce SD variability (stratification and covariates), Predictive models and methods, and Surgery as a work-process. The latter addresses surgery characterization as a work-process (repetitive, semi-repetitive or memoryless) and its effect on SD distributional shape.

SD Statistical Distributions

Theoretical models

A most straightforward SD predictive method comprises specifying a set of existent statistical distributions, and based on available data and distribution-fitting criteria select the most fitting distribution. There is a large volume of comparative studies that attempt to select the most fitting models for SD distribution. Distributions most frequently addressed are the normal, the three-parameter lognormal, gamma (including the exponential) and Weibull. Less frequent "trial" distributions (for fitting purposes) are the loglogistic model, Burr, generalized gamma and the piecewise-constant hazard model. Attempts to presenting SD distribution as a mixture-distribution have also been reported (normal-normal, lognormal-lognormal and Weibull–Gamma mixtures). Occasionally, predictive methods are developed that are valid for a general SD distribution, or more advanced techniques, like Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), are used instead of the traditional methods (like distribution-fitting or regression-oriented methods). There is broad consensus that the three-parameter lognormal describes best most SD distributions. A new family of SD distributions, which includes the normal, lognormal and exponential as exact special cases, has recently been developed. Here are some examples (latest first).[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Using historical records to specify an empirical distribution

As an alternative to specifying a theoretical distribution as model for SD, one may use records to construct a histogram of available data, and use the related empirical distribution function (the cumulative plot) to estimate various required percentiles (like the median or the third quartile). Historical records/expert estimates may also be used to specify location and scale parameters, without specifying a model for SD distribution.

Data mining methods

These methods have recently gained traction as an alternative to specifying in-advance a theoretical model to describe SD distribution for all types of surgeries. Examples are detailed below ("Predictive models and methods").

Reducing SD variability (stratification and covariates)

To enhance SD prediction accuracy, two major approaches are pursued to reduce SD data variability: Stratification and covariates (incorporated in the predictive model). Covariates are often referred to in the literature also as factors, effects, explanatory variables or predictors.

Stratification

The term means that available data are divided (stratified) into subgroups, according to a criterion statistically shown to affect SD distribution. The predictive method then aims to produce SD prediction for specified subgroups, having SD with appreciably reduced variability. Examples for stratification criteria are medical specialty, Procedure Code systems, patient-severity condition or hospital/surgeon/technology (with resulting models related to as hospital-specific, surgeon-specific or technology-specific). Examples for implementation are Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and ICD-9-CM Diagnosis and Procedure Codes (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification).[15] [16] [17]

Covariates (factors, effects, explanatory variables, predictors)

This approach to reduce variability incorporates covariates in the prediction model. The same predictive method may then be more generally applied, with covariates assuming different values for different levels of the factors shown to affect SD distribution (usually by affecting a location parameter, like the mean, and, more rarely, also a scale parameter, like the variance). A most basic method to incorporate covariates into a predictive method is to assume that SD distribution is lognormally distributed. The logged data (taking log of SD data) then represent a normally distributed population, allowing use of multiple- linear-regression to detect statistically significant factors. Other regression methods, which do not require data normality or are robust to its violation (generalized linear models, nonlinear regression) and artificial intelligence methods have also been used (references sorted chronologically, latest first).[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Predictive models and methods

Following is a representative (non-exhaustive) list of models and methods employed to produce SD predictions (in no particular order). These, or a mixture thereof, may be found in the sample of representative references below:

Linear regression (LR); Multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS); Random forests (RF); Machine learning; Data mining (rough sets, neural networks); Knowledge discovery in databases (KDD); Data warehouse model (used to extract data from various, possibly non-interacting, databases); Kernel density estimation (KDE); Jackknife; Monte Carlo simulation.[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [2] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Surgery as work-process (repetitive, semi-repetitive, memoryless)

Surgery is a work process, and likewise it requires inputs to achieve the desired output, a recuperating post-surgery patient. Examples of work-process inputs, from Production Engineering, are the five M's — "money, manpower, materials, machinery, methods" (where "manpower" refers to the human element in general). Like all work-processes in industry and the services, surgeries also have a certain characteristic work-content, which may be unstable to various degrees (within the defined statistical population to which the prediction method aims). This generates a source for SD variability that affects SD distributional shape (from the normal distribution, for purely repetitive processes, to the exponential, for purely memoryless processes). Ignoring this source may confound its variability with that due to covariates (as detailed earlier). Therefore, as all work-processes may be partitioned into three types (repetitive, semi-repetitive, memoryless), surgeries may be similarly partitioned. A stochastic model that takes account of work-content instability has recently been developed, which delivers a family of distributions, with the normal/lognormal and exponential as exact special cases. This model was applied to construct a statistical process control scheme for SD.[41] [42]

References

  1. Rahimi. Iman. Gandomi. Amir H.. 2020-05-11. A Comprehensive Review and Analysis of Operating Room and Surgery Scheduling. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering. 28. 3. 1667–1688. en. 10.1007/s11831-020-09432-2. 10453/145725 . 219421229. 1886-1784. free.
  2. Bellini. Valentina. Guzzon. Marco. Bigliardi. Barbara. Mordonini. Monica. Filippelli. Serena. Bignami. Elena. January 2020. Artificial Intelligence: A New Tool in Operating Room Management. Role of Machine Learning Models in Operating Room Optimization. Journal of Medical Systems. en. 44. 1. 20. 10.1007/s10916-019-1512-1. 31823034. 209169574. 0148-5598.
  3. Zhu. Shuwan. Fan. Wenjuan. Yang. Shanlin. Pei. Jun. Pardalos. Panos M.. 2019-04-01. Operating room planning and surgical case scheduling: a review of literature. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization. en. 37. 3. 757–805. 10.1007/s10878-018-0322-6. 85562744. 1573-2886.
  4. Cardoen. Brecht. Demeulemeester. Erik. Beliën. Jeroen. March 2010. Operating room planning and scheduling: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research. en. 201. 3. 921–932. 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.011. 11003991 .
  5. Shore. Haim. 2020-04-02. An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation. Communications in Statistics. en. 6. 2. 142–166. 10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066. 218927900. 2373-7484.
  6. Taaffe. Kevin. Pearce. Bryan. Ritchie. Gilbert. 2021. Using kernel density estimation to model surgical procedure duration. International Transactions in Operational Research. en. 28. 1. 401–418. 10.1111/itor.12561. 1475-3995. free.
  7. Joustra. Paul. Meester. Reinier. van Ophem. Hans. June 2013. Can statisticians beat surgeons at the planning of operations?. Empirical Economics. en. 44. 3. 1697–1718. 10.1007/s00181-012-0594-0. 89603919. 0377-7332. 10.1007/s00181-012-0594-0. free.
  8. Choi. Sangdo. Wilhelm. Wilbert E.. 2012-04-01. An analysis of sequencing surgeries with durations that follow the lognormal, gamma, or normal distribution. IIE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering. 2. 2. 156–171. 10.1080/19488300.2012.684272. 120620428. 1948-8300.
  9. Chakraborty. Santanu. Muthuraman. Kumar. Lawley. Mark. 2010-02-26. Sequential clinical scheduling with patient no-shows and general service time distributions. IIE Transactions. en. 42. 5. 354–366. 10.1080/07408170903396459. 18947312. 0740-817X.
  10. Eijkemans. Marinus J. C.. van Houdenhoven. Mark. Nguyen. Tien. Boersma. Eric. Steyerberg. Ewout W.. Kazemier. Geert. 2010-01-01. Predicting the Unpredictable: A New Prediction Model for Operating Room Times Using Individual Characteristics and the Surgeon's Estimate. Anesthesiology. 112. 1. 41–49. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181c294c2. 19952726. 27705870. 0003-3022. free.
  11. Spangler. William E.. Strum. David P.. Vargas. Luis G.. May. Jerrold H.. 2004-05-01. Estimating Procedure Times for Surgeries by Determining Location Parameters for the Lognormal Model. Health Care Management Science. en. 7. 2. 97–104. 10.1023/B:HCMS.0000020649.78458.98. 15152974. 31286297. 1572-9389.
  12. Strum. David P.. May. Jerrold H.. Sampson. Allan R.. Vargas. Luis G.. Spangler. William E.. 2003-01-01. Estimating Times of Surgeries with Two Component Procedures: Comparison of the Lognormal and Normal Models. Anesthesiology. 98. 1. 232–240. 10.1097/00000542-200301000-00035. 12503002. 13326275. 0003-3022.
  13. May. Jerrold H.. Strum. David P.. Vargas. Luis G.. 2000. Fitting the Lognormal Distribution to Surgical Procedure Times*. Decision Sciences. en. 31. 1. 129–148. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2000.tb00927.x. 1540-5915.
  14. Strum. David P.. May. Jerrold H.. Vargas. Luis G.. 2000-04-01. Modeling the Uncertainty of Surgical Procedure Times. Anesthesiology. en. 92. 4. 1160–1167. 10.1097/00000542-200004000-00035. 10754637. 17273369. 0003-3022. free.
  15. Dexter. Franklin. Dexter. Elisabeth U.. Ledolter. Johannes. April 2010. Influence of Procedure Classification on Process Variability and Parameter Uncertainty of Surgical Case Durations. Anesthesia & Analgesia. en. 110. 4. 1155–1163. 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181d3e79d. 20357155. 7546223. 0003-2999. free.
  16. Li. Ying. Zhang. Saijuan. Baugh. Reginald F.. Huang. Jianhua Z.. 2009-11-30. Predicting surgical case durations using ill-conditioned CPT code matrix. IIE Transactions. 42. 2. 121–135. 10.1080/07408170903019168. 33971174. 0740-817X.
  17. Stepaniak. Pieter S.. Heij. Christiaan. Mannaerts. Guido H. H.. de Quelerij. Marcel. de Vries. Guus. October 2009. Modeling Procedure and Surgical Times for Current Procedural Terminology-Anesthesia-Surgeon Combinations and Evaluation in Terms of Case-Duration Prediction and Operating Room Efficiency: A Multicenter Study. Anesthesia & Analgesia. en-US. 109. 4. 1232–1245. 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b5de07. 19762753. 5501541. 0003-2999. free.
  18. Wang. Jin. Cabrera. Javier. Tsui. Kwok-Leung. Guo. Hainan. Bakker. Monique. Kostis. John B.. 2020-02-10. Clinical and Nonclinical Effects on Operative Duration: Evidence from a Database on Thoracic Surgery. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2020. 1–8. en. 10.1155/2020/3582796. 7035554. 32104558. free.
  19. Parker. Sarah Henrickson. Lei. Xue. Fitzgibbons. Shimae. Metzger. Thomas. Safford. Shawn. Kaplan. Seth. November 2020. The Impact of Surgical Team Familiarity on Length of Procedure and Length of Stay: Inconsistent Relationships Across Procedures, Team Members, and Sites. World Journal of Surgery. en. 44. 11. 3658–3667. 10.1007/s00268-020-05657-1. 32661690. 220506263. 0364-2313.
  20. Powezka. Katarzyna. Normahani. Pasha. Standfield. Nigel J.. Jaffer. Usman. 2020-03-01. A novel team Familiarity Score for operating teams is a predictor of length of a procedure: A retrospective Bayesian analysis. Journal of Vascular Surgery. English. 71. 3. 959–966. 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.03.085. 0741-5214. 31401113. 199540652. free.
  21. Wang. Jin. Cabrera. Javier. Tsui. Kwok-Leung. Guo. Hainan. Bakker. Monique. Kostis. John B.. 2020-02-10. Clinical and Nonclinical Effects on Operative Duration: Evidence from a Database on Thoracic Surgery. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. en. 2020. 1–8. 10.1155/2020/3582796. 2040-2295. 7035554. 32104558. free.
  22. Book: Tan. K. W.. Nguyen. F. N. H. L.. Ang. B. Y.. Gan. J.. Lam. S. W.. 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) . Data-Driven Surgical Duration Prediction Model for Surgery Scheduling: A Case-Study for a Practice-Feasible Model in a Public Hospital . August 2019. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8843299. 275–280. 10.1109/COASE.2019.8843299. 978-1-7281-0356-3. 202701068.
  23. van Eijk. Ruben P. A.. van Veen-Berkx. Elizabeth. Kazemier. Geert. Eijkemans. Marinus J. C.. August 2016. Effect of Individual Surgeons and Anesthesiologists on Operating Room Time. Anesthesia & Analgesia. en. 123. 2. 445–451. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001430. 27308953. 21344455. 0003-2999.
  24. Kayış. Enis. Khaniyev. Taghi T.. Suermondt. Jaap. Sylvester. Karl. 2015-09-01. A robust estimation model for surgery durations with temporal, operational, and surgery team effects. Health Care Management Science. en. 18. 3. 222–233. 10.1007/s10729-014-9309-8. 25501470. 28157635. 1572-9389.
  25. Gillespie. Brigid M.. Chaboyer. Wendy. Fairweather. Nicole. 2012-01-01. Factors that influence the expected length of operation: results of a prospective study. BMJ Quality & Safety. en. 21. 1. 3–12. 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000169. 2044-5415. 22003174. 9857941. 10072/47509. free.
  26. Kayis. Enis. Wang. Haiyan. Patel. Meghna. Gonzalez. Tere. Jain. Shelen. Ramamurthi. R. J.. Santos. Cipriano. Singhal. Sharad. Suermondt. Jaap. Sylvester. Karl. 2012. Improving prediction of surgery duration using operational and temporal factors. AMIA ... Annual Symposium Proceedings. AMIA Symposium. 2012. 456–462. 1942-597X. 3540440. 23304316.
  27. Palmer. Phillip B.. O'Connell. Dennis G.. September 2009. Regression analysis for prediction: understanding the process. Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal. 20. 3. 23–26. 10.1097/01823246-200920030-00004. 2374-8907. 2845248. 20467520.
  28. Dexter. Franklin. Dexter. Elisabeth U.. Masursky. Danielle. Nussmeier. Nancy A.. April 2008. Systematic Review of General Thoracic Surgery Articles to Identify Predictors of Operating Room Case Durations. Anesthesia & Analgesia. en-US. 106. 4. 1232–1241. 10.1213/ane.0b013e318164f0d5. 18349199. 24481667. 0003-2999.
  29. Ballantyne. Garth H.. Ewing. Douglas. Capella. Rafael F.. Capella. Joseph F.. Davis. Dan. Schmidt. Hans J.. Wasielewski. Annette. Davies. Richard J.. 2005-02-01. The Learning Curve Measured by Operating Times for Laparoscopic and Open Gastric Bypass: Roles of Surgeon's Experience, Institutional Experience, Body Mass Index and Fellowship Training. Obesity Surgery. en. 15. 2. 172–182. 10.1381/0960892053268507. 15810124. 9083869. 1708-0428.
  30. Strum. David P.. Sampson. Allan R.. May. Jerrold H.. Vargas. Luis G.. 2000-05-01. Surgeon and Type of Anesthesia Predict Variability in Surgical Procedure Times. Anesthesiology. 92. 5. 1454–1466. 10.1097/00000542-200005000-00036. 10781292. 18089668. 0003-3022. free.
  31. Soh. K. W.. Walker. C.. O’Sullivan. M.. Wallace. J.. 2020-01-02. An Evaluation of the Hybrid Model for Predicting Surgery Duration. Journal of Medical Systems. en. 44. 2. 42. 10.1007/s10916-019-1501-4. 31897758. 209541497. 1573-689X.
  32. Soh. K. W.. Walker. C.. O’Sullivan. M.. Wallace. J.. 2020-10-01. Comparison of Jackknife and Hybrid-Boost Model Averaging to Predict Surgery Durations: A Case Study. SN Computer Science. en. 1. 6. 316. 10.1007/s42979-020-00339-0. 2661-8907. free.
  33. Jiao. York. Sharma. Anshuman. Ben Abdallah. Arbi. Maddox. Thomas M.. Kannampallil. Thomas. 2020-12-09. Probabilistic forecasting of surgical case duration using machine learning: model development and validation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 27. 12. 1885–1893. 10.1093/jamia/ocaa140. 1527-974X. 7727362. 33031543.
  34. Rozario. Natasha. Rozario. Duncan. 2020-11-12. Can machine learning optimize the efficiency of the operating room in the era of COVID-19?. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 63. 6. E527–E529. 10.1503/cjs.016520. 7747850. 33180692.
  35. Bartek. Matthew A.. Saxena. Rajeev C.. Solomon. Stuart. Fong. Christine T.. Behara. Lakshmana D.. Venigandla. Ravitheja. Velagapudi. Kalyani. Lang. John D.. Nair. Bala G.. October 2019. Improving Operating Room Efficiency: Machine Learning Approach to Predict Case-Time Duration. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. en. 229. 4. 346–354.e3. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.05.029. 7077507. 31310851.
  36. Tuwatananurak. Justin P.. Zadeh. Shayan. Xu. Xinling. Vacanti. Joshua A.. Fulton. William R.. Ehrenfeld. Jesse M.. Urman. Richard D.. 2019-01-17. Machine Learning Can Improve Estimation of Surgical Case Duration: A Pilot Study. Journal of Medical Systems. en. 43. 3. 44. 10.1007/s10916-019-1160-5. 30656433. 58014888. 1573-689X.
  37. Zhao. Beiqun. Waterman. Ruth S.. Urman. Richard D.. Gabriel. Rodney A.. 2019-01-05. A Machine Learning Approach to Predicting Case Duration for Robot-Assisted Surgery. Journal of Medical Systems. en. 43. 2. 32. 10.1007/s10916-018-1151-y. 30612192. 57447853. 1573-689X.
  38. Hosseini. N.. Sir. M. Y.. Jankowski. C. J.. Pasupathy. K. S.. 2015. Surgical Duration Estimation via Data Mining and Predictive Modeling: A Case Study. AMIA ... Annual Symposium Proceedings. AMIA Symposium. 2015. 640–648. 1942-597X. 4765628. 26958199.
  39. ShahabiKargar. Zahra. Khanna. Sankalp. Good. Norm. Sattar. Abdul. Lind. James. O’Dwyer. John. 2014. Pham. Duc-Nghia. Park. Seong-Bae. Predicting Procedure Duration to Improve Scheduling of Elective Surgery. PRICAI 2014: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8862. en. Cham. Springer International Publishing. 998–1009. 10.1007/978-3-319-13560-1_86. 978-3-319-13560-1.
  40. 2008-03-01. Using a KDD process to forecast the duration of surgery. International Journal of Production Economics. en. 112. 1. 279–293. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.068. 0925-5273. Combes. C.. Meskens. N.. Rivat. C.. Vandamme. J.-P..
  41. Shore. Haim. SPC scheme to monitor surgery duration. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 2020. 37. 4. 1561–1577. en. 10.1002/qre.2813. 229442000. 1099-1638.
  42. Shore. Haim. 2021-12-13. Estimating operating room utilisation rate for differently distributed surgery times. International Journal of Production Research. 61 . 2 . 447–461. 10.1080/00207543.2021.2009141. 245200753. 0020-7543.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Predictive methods for surgery duration".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.