Trends in bariatric surgery in Texas: an analysis of a statewide administrative database 2013-2017.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) tracks 30-day outcomes of bariatric patients, but only at accredited centers. Presently, these cases are not broken down by state. Administrative databases can be used to answer some of the questions that are not asked by clinical databases and also to validate those databases. We proposed using the inpatient and outpatient administrative databases in Texas to examine both the numbers and trends of bariatric surgery in Texas over a 5-year period. METHODS: The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (IPUDF) and the Texas Outpatient Public Data File (OPUDF) were examined for the years 2013-2017. We searched for patients undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and duodenal switch. Robotic assisted cases were also examined. RESULTS: There were 105,199 bariatric cases performed in Texas from 2013 to 2017. There were 173 centers performing bariatric surgery. The most common operation performed was the sleeve gastrectomy at 73,663 case (70% of total). Gastric bypasses were second at 22,890 cases. During this time period, LAGB almost disappeared; dropping from 2090 cases in 2013 to 115 cases in 2017, with removal of 2097 LAGB in the study period in the OPUDF. During this time period, there was a lower growth rate of the number of SG in the IPUDF with a large increase in SG performed with outpatient status, while LRYGB remained relatively stable. CONCLUSION: Rates of bariatric surgery in Texas are increasing slowly. The dominant procedure is the SG with a trend towards being done under outpatient status. LAGB has been essentially phased out. There is an increase in SG being performed under 'outpatient' status.

Small bowel obstructions following the use of barbed suture: a review of the literature and analysis of the MAUDE database.

BACKGROUND: Barbed suture has been adopted across all surgical specialties. One of the infrequent complications seen with the use of barbed suture is small bowel obstructions (SBOs). In this study, we perform a review of the literature and the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE) to characterize SBOs after the use of barbed sutures in a variety of operative procedures. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed and Ovid. We used the search terms: "barbed," "suture," "bowel," and "obstructions." For each case report, we examined the initial surgical procedure, type of barbed suture used, the type of complication, the time to complication, the presentation, and the type of operative interventions required. We did the same with the MAUDE database. RESULTS: Our review of the literature revealed 18 different cases of SBO secondary to the use of barbed suture. The four most common procedures, with a total of four cases each, were inguinal hernia procedures, myomectomy, hysterectomy, and pelvic floor reconstructive procedures. The average time of presentation to SBO was found to be 26.3 days post-op (1-196 days). A total of 16 patients (88.9%) presented with abdominal pain. Other common complaints included vomiting (33.3%), abdominal distension (27.8%), oral intolerance (22.2%), and constipation (16.7%). A total of 5 cases were also found to have a possible volvulus on computed tomography (CT), and 2 cases were reported to have strangulation. The MAUDE database had 14 cases reporting on obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should have a high index of suspicion for SBO if a patient presents with obstructive symptoms after a surgery that used barbed suture. This will often present as a mesenteric volvulus on CT. These particular SBOs require operative exploration, with laparoscopy being successful in the majority of cases.

Trends in revisional bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database 2015-2017.

BACKGROUND: The third most common bariatric surgery is revisional bariatric surgery. The American College of Surgeons tracks outcomes using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database. We used this database to examine trends in revisional bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how trends in bariatric revisional surgery have changed in recent years. SETTING: University Hospital, United States. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database for 2015 to 2017 was examined for revisions of bariatric surgery. Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery were identified by the primary Current Procedural Terminology code, the REVCONV and PREVIOUS_SURGERY field as well as secondary Current Procedural Terminology codes. There is no exact code for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), so we used 43644 (GB)+REVCONV+PREVIOUS_SURGERY for this. RESULTS: For the years 2015 to 2017 there were 57,683 revisions/conversions of 528,081 patients. The number of revisions increased over the study period by 5213 cases. The most common revision was laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to SG with 15,433 cases and the second was LAGB to LRYGB with 10,485 cases. There were 14,715 LAGB removals. It is more difficult to track SG to LRYGB but there were 8491 unlisted cases, which may have been sleeve to bypass. CONCLUSION: LAGBs are being taken out or converted, and this group makes up the largest portion of revisions and conversions. It is difficult to track SG to LRYGB, but the number of unlisted cases continues to climb. This will likely surpass LAGB conversions with time. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program should be modified to capture revisions/conversions of SG.

Utilization of Laparoscopic Colon Surgery in the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of care for the most common surgical procedures performed. However, laparoscopic techniques have not reached this same penetrance in colorectal surgery. We wanted to determine the percentage of colon operations performed in Texas that were done via laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques. METHODS: The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF) was queried using ICD-9-CM diagnostic and procedure codes to determine overall utilization of laparoscopic colectomies (LC) in Texas between 2013-14 for reporting facilities. We specifically looked at cost and the length of stay for LC, open colectomy (OC) and robotic assisted colectomy (RAC). RESULTS: In the state of Texas between 2013-14 there were 20,454 colectomies performed. Of these 12,328 (60.3%) were OC, 7,536 (36.8%) were LC, and 590 (3.9%) were RAC. Average total cost was $117,113 for OC, $75,741.9 for LC, and $81,996.2 for RAC. Average length of stay for each technique was 10.6 days for OC, 6.1 days for LC, and 5.1 days for RAC. The risk of a postoperative complication occurring was higher in the open procedure than a laparoscopic procedure. CONCLUSIONS: LC accounted for only 36.8% of all colectomies performed in Texas between 2013-14. OC costs twice as much as LC and increased the length of stay by nearly 4 d. LC and RAC are both associated with significantly less cost and length of stay for patients undergoing surgery, while lowering perioperative complications. DISCLOSURES: None of the authors have any relevant disclosures.