Challenging Dogma by Skipping the Emergency Department Thoracotomy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Database.

INTRODUCTION: Survival following emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) for patients in extremis is poor. Whether intervention in the operating room instead of EDT in select patients could lead to improved outcomes is unknown. We hypothesized that patients who underwent intervention in the operating room would have improved outcomes compared to those who underwent EDT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from 2017 to 2021. All adult patients who underwent EDT, operating room thoracotomy (ORT), or sternotomy as the first form of surgical intervention within 1 h of arrival were included. Of patients without prehospital cardiac arrest, propensity score matching was utilized to create three comparable groups. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary outcomes included time to procedure. RESULTS: There were 1865 EDT patients, 835 ORT patients, and 456 sternotomy patients who met the inclusion criteria. There were 349 EDT, 344 ORT, and 408 sternotomy patients in the matched analysis. On Cox multivariate regression, there was an increased risk of mortality with EDT versus sternotomy (HR 4.64, P < 0.0001), EDT versus ORT (HR 1.65, P < 0.0001), and ORT versus sternotomy (HR 2.81, P < 0.0001). Time to procedure was shorter with EDT versus sternotomy (22 min versus 34 min, P < 0.0001) and versus ORT (22 min versus 37 min, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was an association between sternotomy and ORT versus EDT and improved mortality. In select patients, operative approaches rather than the traditional EDT could be considered.

The impact of disclosure of conflicts of interest in studies comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomies-a persistent problem.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is critical to interpretation of study results, especially when industry interests are involved. We reviewed published manuscripts comparing robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to evaluate the relationship between COI disclosures and conclusions drawn on the procedure benefits and safety profile. METHODS: Searching Pubmed and Embase using key words "cholecystectomy", laparoscopic" and "robotic"/"robot-assisted" retrieved 345 publications. Manuscripts that compared benefits and safety of RAC over LC, had at least one US author and were published between 2014 and 2020 enabling verification of disclosures with reported industry payments in CMS's Open Payments database (OPD) (up to 1 calendar year prior to publication) were included in the analysis (n = 37). RESULTS: Overall, 26 (70%) manuscripts concluded that RAC was equivalent or better than LC (RAC +) and 11 (30%) concluded that RAC was inferior to LC (RAC-). Six manuscripts (5 RAC + and 1 RAC-) did not have clearly stated COI disclosures. Among those that had disclosure statements, authors' disclosures matched OPD records among 17 (81%) of RAC + and 9 (90%) RAC- papers. All 11 RAC- and 17 RAC + (65%) manuscripts were based on retrospective cohort studies. The remaining RAC + papers were based on case studies/series (n = 4), literature review (n = 4) and clinical trial (n = 1). A higher proportion of RAC + (85% vs 45% RAC-) manuscripts used data from a single institution. Authors on RAC + papers received higher amounts of industry payments on average compared to RAC- papers. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative for authors to understand and accurately disclose their COI while disseminating scientific output. Journals have the responsibility to use a publicly available resource like the OPD to verify authors' disclosures prior to publication to protect the process of scientific authorship which is the foundation of modern surgical care.

An assessment of perioperative outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in New York State.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) are increasing in practice, however, data remains limited regarding perioperative outcomes. Our study sought to compare patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) with those undergoing laparoscopic (LPD) or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). METHODS: Patients who underwent PD during 2016-2018 were identified from the New York State Planning and Research Cooperative System database. RESULTS: Of the 1954 patients identified, 1708 (87.4%) underwent OPD, 165 (8.4%) underwent LPD, and 81 (4.2%) underwent RPD. The majority of patients were White (63.8%), males (53.3%) with a mean age of 65.4 years. RPD patients had a lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index (2) than OPD (3) or LPD (3, p = 0.01) and had a lower 30-day rate of complications (35.8% vs. 48.3% vs. 43.6% respectively, p = 0.05). After propensity-score matching, however, there were no differences between the groups regarding overall complications, surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, or mortality (p = NS for all). OPD demonstrated a longer length of stay (median 8 days) compared to LPD (7 days) or RPD (7 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing LPD and RPD have a shorter length of hospital stay compared to OPD and there was no difference in overall morbidity or mortality when matched to similar patients.

Gun violence revictimization in New York State: What increases the risk of being shot again?

BACKGROUND: While gun injuries are more likely to occur in in urban settings and affect people of color, factors associated with gun violence revictimization-suffering multiple incidents of gun violence-are unknown. We examined victim demographics and environmental factors associated with gun violence revictimization in New York state (NYS). METHODS: The 2005-2020 NYS hospital discharge database was queried for patients aged 12-65 years with firearm-related hospital encounters. Patient and environmental variables were extracted. Patient home zip code was used to determine the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) for each patient's area of residence. We conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses among patients who suffered a single incident of gun violence or gun violence revictimization. RESULTS: We identified 38,974 gun violence victims among whom 2,243 (5.8%) suffered revictimization. The proportion of revictimization rose from 4% in 2008 to 8% in 2020 (p < 0.01). The median [IQR] time from first to second incident among those who suffered revictimization was 359 [81-1,167] days. Revictimization was more common among Blacks (75.0% vs 65.1%, p < 0.01), patients with Medicaid (54.9% vs 43.2%, p < 0.01), and in areas of higher deprivation (84.8 percentile vs 82.1 percentile, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Gun violence revictimization is on the rise. People of color and those residing in areas with high social deprivation are more likely to be re-injured. Our findings emphasize the importance of community-level over individual-level interventions for prevention of gun violence revictimization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, Level III.