Impact of Procedure Risk vs Frailty on Outcomes of Elderly Patients Undergoing Emergency General Surgery: Results of a National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The direct association between procedure risk and outcomes in elderly patients who undergo emergency general surgery (EGS) has not been analyzed. Studies only highlight the importance of frailty. A comprehensive analysis of relevant risk factors and their association with outcomes in elderly patients who undergo EGS is lacking. We hypothesized that procedure risk has a stronger association with relevant outcomes in elderly patients who undergo EGS compared with frailty. STUDY DESIGN: Elderly patients (age >65 years) undergoing EGS operative procedures were identified in the NSQIP database (2018 to 2020) and stratified based on the presence of frailty calculated by the Modified 5-Item Frailty Index (mFI-5; mFI 0 nonfrail, mFI 1 to 2 frail, and mFI ≥3 severely frail) and based on procedure risk. Multivariable regression models and receiving operative curve analysis were used to determine risk factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 59,633 elderly patients who underwent EGS were classified into nonfrail (17,496; 29.3%), frail (39,588; 66.4%), and severely frail (2,549; 4.3%). There were 25,157 patients in the low-risk procedure group and 34,476 in the high-risk group. Frailty and procedure risk were associated with increased mortality, complications, failure to rescue, and readmissions. Differences in outcomes were greater when patients were stratified according to procedure risk compared with frailty stratification alone. Procedure risk had a stronger association with relevant outcomes in elderly patients who underwent EGS compared with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing frailty in the population of elderly patients who undergo EGS without adjusting for the type of procedure or procedure risk ultimately presents an incomplete representation of how frailty impacts patient-related outcomes.

Lights off, camera on! Laparoscopic cholecystectomy improves outcomes in cirrhotic patients with acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: The best surgical approach to treat acute cholecystitis (AC) in cirrhotic patients is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate treatment options in cirrhotic patients with AC. We hypothesized that laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) would lead to better clinical outcomes when compared to non-operative management (NOM) and open cholecystectomy (OC), independent of the severity of liver cirrhosis. METHODS: Patients from the National Inpatient Sample diagnosed with AC were stratified into no cirrhosis (NC), compensated cirrhosis (CC), and decompensated cirrhosis (DC) and analyzed according to treatment: NOM, OC, and LC. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), cost, and surgical complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses using generalized linear models were performed. A P < 0.05 was deemed significant. RESULTS: Of 1 367 495 AC patients, 49 030 (3.6%) had cirrhosis; 23 260 had CC, and 25 770 had DC. LC (12 080 in CC group and 4840 in DC group) was accompanied by significantly lower mortality, HLOS, complications, and cost when compared to OC and NOM. OC was significantly associated with higher mortality, increased HLOS, total cost, and postoperative complications, independent of the presence or severity of cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: LC in cirrhotic patients leads to superior outcomes compared to OC and NOM regardless of the severity of cirrhosis.

Endovascular repair is a feasible option for superficial femoral artery injuries: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes between open (OR) and endovascular repair following superficial femoral artery (SFA) injuries. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study querying the 2012-2014 National Inpatient Sample for SFA injuries. Patients were grouped into OR and stent-graft placement (SGP). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), fasciotomy and amputation rate, and cost. Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-squared test with Bonferroni adjustment were used as appropriate; p < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: 255 Patients were identified. Mean age was 34.6 years and majority were males. OR was performed in 82.7%. Overall mortality rate was 3.7%. Median HLOS was 8 days. Fasciotomies were performed in 31% and lower limb amputations in 3.7%. Males more often underwent OR (89.0% vs. 73.1%, p < 0.01). SGP patients were significantly older (44.9 vs. 32.5 years; p < 0.01), and with Medicare insurance (20.5% vs. 6.5%; p < 0.01. Mortality, HLOS, and hospitalization cost were not significantly different. OR patients had higher rate of fasciotomy (35.4% vs. 15.4%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular management is not inferior to OR following SFA injuries and both carry a low amputation rate. OR is associated with a higher fasciotomy rate. Endovascular repair should be considered when technically feasible.

European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) recommendations for trauma and emergency surgery preparation during times of COVID-19 infection.

A series of recommendations regarding hospital perioperative preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic were compiled to inform surgeons worldwide on how to provide emergency surgery and trauma care during enduring times.The recommendations are divided into eight domains: (1) General recommendation for surgical services; (2) Emergency Surgery for critically ill COVID-19 positive or suspected patients -Preoperative planning and case selection; (3) Operating Room setup; (4) patient transport to the OR; (5) Surgical staff preparation; (6) Anesthesia considerations; (7) Surgical approach; and (8) Case Completion.The European Society of Emergency Surgery board endorsed these recommendations.