Initial experience with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and early discharge protocols after robotic extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia surgery.

BACKGROUND: Though robotic adoption for eTEP surgery has decreased technical barriers to minimally invasive repairs of large ventral hernias, relatively few studies have examined outcomes of robotic-specific eTEP surgery. This study evaluates safety, feasibility, and early outcomes of ERAS/same-day discharge protocols for robotic eTEP ventral hernia repairs. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all robotic eTEP hernia surgeries at a single institution between 2019 and 2022. Analysis included patient demographics, hernia characteristics, intraoperative data, and post-operative outcomes at 30 days. ERAS protocol included: judicious use of urinary catheters with removal at end of case if placed, bilateral transversus abdominus plane (TAP) blocks, post-operative abdominal wall binder, and opioid-sparing perioperative analgesia. Patients were discharged same day from post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) if they lacked comorbidities requiring observation post-anesthesia and demonstrated stable vital signs, adequate pain control, ability to void, and ability to ambulate. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was considered 0 for same-day PACU discharges or hospitalizations < 24 h. RESULTS: 102 patients were included in this case series. 69% (70/102) of patients were discharged same-day (mean LOS 0.47 ± 0.80 days). Within 30 post-operative days, 3% (3/102) of patients presented to the ER, 2% (2/102) were readmitted to the hospital, and 1% (1/102) required reoperation. There was 1 serious complication (Clavien-Dindo grade 3/4) with an aggregate complication rate of 7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial experience with ERAS protocols and same-day discharges after robotic eTEP repair demonstrates this approach is safe and feasible with acceptable short-term patient outcomes. Compared to traditional open surgery for large ventral hernias, robotic eTEP may enable significant reductions in hospital LOS as adoption increases.

Metabolic syndrome as a predictor of perioperative outcomes in primary bariatric surgery, a MBSAQIP survey.

BACKGROUND: Among bariatric surgery patients, body mass index (BMI) does not fully capture the severity of obesity and it may be complicated to stratify patients at higher risk of peri-operative complications. In our study, we surveyed the MBSAQIP database to determine whether bariatric patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) are at higher risk for peri-operative complications. METHODS: MBSAQIP database was used to investigate the correlation between MetS and perioperative outcomes. All patients between 2015 and 2018, ≥ 18 years old, who underwent primary bariatric surgery were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery or had surgery performed by gastroenterologist or interventional radiologist. We modified the International Diabetes Federation definition of MetS for our study to select patients with BMI > 30 in addition to two or more of the following comorbidities: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. Secondary outcomes included post-operative surgical site infections (SSI), perioperative MI, stroke, acute renal failure, transfusion requirement, readmission, conversion to open and reoperation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, 760,076 bariatric operations were performed. 670,935 met criteria for analysis. 190,239 patients were identified to have MetS. Patients with MetS were found to have higher odds of death (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.97-2.72), SSI (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.31-1.48), perioperative MI (OR 4.70; 95% CI 3.42-6.45), stroke (OR 3.30; 95% CI 2.08-5.24), acute renal failure (OR 3.04; 95% CI 2.48-3.72), and transfusion requirement (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.33-1.39). CONCLUSION: Patients with metabolic syndrome are at increased odds of peri-operative complications after bariatric surgery.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of Minimally Invasive Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To define "best possible" outcomes for bariatric surgery (BS)(Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB] and sleeve gastrectomy [SG]). BACKGROUND: Reference values for optimal surgical outcomes in well-defined low-risk bariatric patients have not been established so far. Consequently, outcome comparison across centers and over time is impeded by heterogeneity in case-mix. METHODS: Out of 39,424 elective BS performed in 19 high-volume academic centers from 3 continents between June 2012 and May 2017, we identified 4120 RYGB and 1457 SG low-risk cases defined by absence of previous abdominal surgery, concomitant procedures, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, anticoagulation, BMI>50 kg/m and age>65 years. We chose clinically relevant endpoints covering the intra- and postoperative course. Complications were graded by severity using the comprehensive complication index. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of the participating centers' median values for respective quality indicators. RESULTS: Patients were mainly females (78%), aged 38±11 years, with a baseline BMI 40.8 ±â€Š5.8 kg/m. Over 90 days, 7.2% of RYGB and 6.2% of SG patients presented at least 1 complication and no patients died (mortality in nonbenchmark cases: 0.06%). The most frequent reasons for readmission after 90-days following both procedures were symptomatic cholelithiasis and abdominal pain of unknown origin. Benchmark values for both RYGB and SG at 90-days postoperatively were 5.5% Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa complication rate, 5.5% readmission rate, and comprehensive complication index ≤33.73 in the subgroup of patients presenting at least 1 grade ≥II complication. CONCLUSION: Benchmark cutoffs targeting perioperative outcomes in BS offer a new tool in surgical quality-metrics and may be implemented in quality-improvement cycle.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03440138.

Conversion of gastric sleeve to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch: safe and viable options.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remains the most performed bariatric surgery. As numbers of SG increase, so do the numbers of patients requiring conversion for insufficient weight loss or weight regain. However, the literature has cited complication rates as high as 30% for reoperative bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: With the recent inclusion of conversion surgery variables in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we compared the safety and efficacy of SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPD/DS). SETTING: MBSAQIP database. METHODS: Analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP Participant Use Files revealed 6020 patients who underwent SG conversion to RYGB (5348) and BPD/DS (672). We examined 30-day outcomes including death, anastomotic leak, readmission, any complication, dehydration, and weight loss. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (.12% versus 0%) or; complication rate (6.5% versus 5.1%) with SG conversion to RYGB or BPD/DS. There was a statistically significant difference in anastomotic leak (.5% versus 1.2%, P = .024). Interestingly, BPD/DS was less likely to require dehydration treatments (4.2% versus 2.2%, P = .009) and had fewer readmissions within 30 days (7.3% versus 5.4%, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates after conversion of SG to RYGB or BPD/DS may be significantly lower than previously reported and only slightly higher than after primary weight loss surgery. SG conversion to either RYGB or BPD/DS remain safe, viable options for patients who had insufficient weight loss or regain, and BPD/DS may be the better option in the appropriate patient.

Changes in utilization of robotic bariatric surgery and effect on patient outcomes from 2015-2020.

Robotic surgery is an increasingly popular alternative to laparoscopy for performing bariatric operations. To describe changes in utilization and complication rates of this technique over the last six years an analysis of the 2015-2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program participant use files (MBSAQIP PUF) was performed. All patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic bariatric surgery from 2015 to 2020 were included. 1,341,814 robotic and laparoscopic bariatric operations were included. Both the number and proportion performed robotically increased from 2015 (n = 9866, 5.87%) to 2019 (n = 54,356, 13.16%). In 2020, although the number of cases decreased, the proportion performed robotically still increased (17.37%). Yet, there has been no significant change in 30 day risk of death (p = 0.946) or infection (p = 0.721). In fact, the risk of any complication has decreased from 8.21% in 2015 to 6.43% in 2020 (p = 0.001). Robotic cases are being increasingly performed on high-risk patients with 77.06% of patients being American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3 or higher in 2015 versus 81.03% (p = 0.001) in 2020. Robotic cases are also more likely to be revision operations than laparoscopic cases (12.16% vs 11.4%, p = 0.001). From 2015 to 2020 robotic bariatric surgery became more prevalent yet both complication rates and length of operation decreased suggesting it is an increasingly safe option. The risk of robotic complications remains higher than laparoscopy, however there are significant differences in the patient populations suggesting there may be specific patients and/or operations in which robotic bariatric surgery is being used.

Implications of declining medicare reimbursement of hernia repair for surgeons and patients.

In conclusion, billing trends reflect declining reimbursement and utilization of hernia repair, and increasing markup ratios may create a financial barrier to accessing hernia for uninsured and underinsured patients. As a new set of hernia repair CPT codes are used in practice, close attention should be paid to the downstream effects of billing practices in hernia repair on physician and patient alike.