First experiences with a surgery supporting computer system in regard to education, efficiency and complications.

Purpose: Since October 2019 a computer software named SPM (surgical process manager) is used in a Level I Trauma center. Workflows were developed for distinct surgical procedures (distal radius fractures, proximal femur fractures, ankle fractures, proximal humerus fractures and vertebral fractures). In addition, these workflows were separated in a shortened "Expert"-versions for consultants and a more detailed "Learner"- versions for residents.This investigation was intended to show, if and what kind of benefits in regard to efficiency (incision to suture and suture to incision time), education and complications a surgery supporting software can bring.

Methods: SPM was used in 90 cases during October 2019 to June 2022. A control trial with 108 patients was developed, including patients of the same age, having same kind of injuries, receiving the same surgery technique without using the SPM.The software was installed on the computer in the operation room, projected on head monitors and operated by a foot pedal. Complications could also be documented using the pedal.Groups were divided in surgical procedures and fracture type, qualification of the surgeon, complications and surgery time. Surgery times were taken from the hospital computer system (SAP IS-H). A statistical analysis was performed by using the chi square and Fischer exact test with significance set at a value <0.05.

Results: In 51 cases the software was used for the distal radius (control group 54 patients), in 20 cases for Weber fractures (control group 21 patients), in 9 cases for the proximal femur (control group 19 patients), in 5 cases for vertebral fractures (control group 7 patients) and in 5 cases for the proximal humerus (control group 6 patients).Time from incision to closure was significant higher in the intervention group (49 vs 42 min, p- value 0,018) and wasn't significant lower in the "expert" group, fixing radius and ancle fractures (39 to 46 min, value 0,186).Comparing the SPM and control group concerning closing to incision time, no difference could be observed (56 to 58,5 min, value 0,828).The greatest time deviation between "Learners"und "Experts"was observed in reduction and fixation ( value 0,006) in ankle fractures. The "Expert"group also needed less time for the approach (p value 0,008) in case of distal radius fractures.Unexpected events were more often observed in the intervention group (5,5 vs 3,7 %).

Conclusions: A surgery supporting computer system might be a good tool for detecting and optimizing workflows in the operation room and for improving and analyzing the training of residents and surgical assistants.In addition, it offers the opportunity to document intraoperative complications. However, a saving of time wasn't observed in this study. Further investigations with bigger number of cases and a longer follow-up are necessary to proof these findings statistically.