Trainee-associated outcomes in laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: propensity score analysis accounting for operative time, procedure complexity and patient comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Surgical trainee association with operative outcomes is controversial. Studies are conflicting, possibly due to insufficient control of confounding variables such as operative time, case complexity, and heterogeneous patient populations. As operative complications worsen long-term outcomes in oncologic patients, understanding effect of trainee involvement during laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is of utmost importance. Here, we hypothesized that resident involvement was associated with worsened 30-day mortality and 30-day overall morbidity in this patient population. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy for oncologic diagnosis from 2005 to 2012 were assessed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset. Propensity score matching accounted for demographics, comorbidities, case complexity, and operative time. Attending only cases were compared to junior, middle, chief resident, and fellow level cohorts to assess primary outcomes of 30-day mortality and 30-day overall morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 13,211 patients met inclusion criteria, with 4075 (30.8%) cases lacking trainee involvement and 9136 (69.2%) involving a trainee. Following propensity matching, junior (PGY 1-2) and middle level (PGY 3-4) resident involvement was not associated with worsened outcomes. Chief (PGY 5) resident involvement was associated with worsened 30-day overall morbidity (15.5 vs. 18.6%, p = 0.01). Fellow (PGY > 5) involvement was associated with worsened 30-day overall morbidity (16.0 vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001), serious morbidity (9.3 vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001), minor morbidity (9.8 vs. 13.1%, p = 0.002), and surgical site infection (7.9 vs. 10.5%, p = 0.006). No differences were seen in 30-day mortality for any resident level. CONCLUSION: Following propensity-matched analysis of cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy, chief residents, and fellows were associated with worsened operative outcomes compared to attending along cases, while junior and mid-level resident outcomes were no different. Further study is necessary to determine what effect the PGY surgical trainee level has on post-operative morbidity in cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy in the context of multiple collinear factors.

Surgeon case volume and readmissions after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: more is less.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is a commonly performed bariatric procedure. Readmissions are used as a quality indicator with a nationwide emphasis on reduction. In LRYGB surgery, surgeon volume studies have focused on correlation with technical outcomes, offering limited data on readmissions. Our aim was to evaluate nationwide data to explore the relationship between surgeon case volume and hospital readmissions following LRYGB. METHODS: The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2011 was used for this study. Analysis was restricted to patients who underwent non-revisional LRYGB. Surgeons performing more than 50 LRYGB during the study period were defined as high-volume surgeons (HVS). Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to control for patient demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 32,521 patients who underwent LRYGB with an overall 30-day readmission rate of 5.5 %, mean age 45.7 (12.0) years, and mean BMI 47.2 (8.0) kg/m2. There were no major differences in BMI (47.3 ± 8.1 vs 47.1 ± 7.9, p = 0.282) or age (45.5 ± 12.0 vs 45.8 ± 12.0, p = 0.030) between low-volume surgeon (LVS) and HVS patients. After controlling for baseline characteristics, HVS patients were less likely to be readmitted compared to those with a LVS (OR = 0.85, 95 % CI 0.77-0.94), with a readmission rate of 5.2 vs 6.1 % (p = 0.001). Additionally, HVS patients had lower rates of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.50, 95 % CI 0.27-0.91), complication (OR = 0.81, 95 % CI 0.75-0.87), reoperation (OR = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.72-0.93), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.64, 95 % CI 0.46-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission following LRYGB is significantly associated with surgeon operative volume; surgeons that perform fewer than 50 LRYGB per year are more likely to have 30-day readmissions and complications. Our findings support other more generalized studies suggesting surgeon case volume is inversely associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes and complications. As such, performance of LRYGB by HVS may decrease patient morbidity, hospital readmission, and overall healthcare utilization.

Comparative effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in super obese patients.

BACKGROUND: The disproportionate increase in the super obese (SO) is a hidden component of the current obesity pandemic. Data on the safety and efficacy of bariatric procedures in this specific patient population are limited. Our aim is to assess the comparative effectiveness of the two most common bariatric procedures in the SO. METHODS: Using the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2012, we compared SO patients (BMI ≥ 50) undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Stepwise logistic regression modeling was used to calculate a propensity score to adjust for patient demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 50,987 SO patients who underwent RYGB (N = 42,119) or SG (N = 8868). There was no difference in adjusted overall 30-day complication rate comparing RYGB and SG patients (11.5 vs. 11.1 %, p = 0.250). RYGB patients had higher adjusted rates of 30-day mortality (0.3 vs. 0.2 %, p = 0.042), reoperation (4.0 vs. 2.4 %, p < 0.001), and readmission (6.9 vs. 5.5 %, p < 0.001) compared to SG patients. The percent of total weight loss (%TWL) was significantly higher for RYGB patients compared to SG at 3 months (14.1 vs. 13.1 %, p < 0.001), 6 months (25.2 vs. 22.4 %, p < 0.001), and 12 months (34.5 vs. 29.7 %, p < 0.001). RYGB patients had increased resolution of all measured comorbidities: diabetes mellitus (61.6 vs. 50.8 %, p < 0.001), hypertension (43.1 vs. 34.5 %, p < 0.001), gastroesophageal reflux disease (53.9 vs. 32.5 %, p < 0.001), hyperlipidemia (39.7 vs. 32.5 %, p < 0.001), and obstructive sleep apnea (42.8 vs. 40.6 %, p = 0.058) at 12 months compared to SG patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in comorbidity improvement and resolution as well as weight loss between RYGB and SG in the SO population. There was no difference in overall 30-day complications, but more RYGB patients required readmission and reoperation. However, RYGB was considerably more effective in controlling obesity-related comorbidities. Our results favor performance of RYGB in SO patients of appropriate risk.

Surgical management of a type A aortic dissection in a pregnant patient.

Despite emphasis for emergent surgical treatment of Stanford type A aortic dissections, pregnant patients that are clinically stable may safely receive a staged approach instead, with delivery followed by delayed dissection repair.

Perioperative safety of laparoscopic versus robotic gastric bypass: a propensity matched analysis of early experience.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic assistance for gastric bypass remains controversial. Using a large nationwide cohort, we compared early outcomes after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Robot-RYGB) with the laparoscopic technique (LRYGB). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use a bariatric-specific, large, nationwide cohort with several years of data to compare the early postoperative outcomes of the Robot-RYGB and LRYGB. SETTING: Nationwide register-based cohort study. METHODS: The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database from 2007 to 2012 was used to identify patients who underwent nonrevisional Robot-RYGB or LRYGB. Propensity matching was used to account for differences in age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, multiple preoperative co-morbidities, and procedural year. A second propensity score was calculated with adjustment of operative time in addition to the other adjusted variables. RESULTS: We identified 137,455 patients who underwent Robot-RYGB (n = 2415) or LRYGB (n = 135,040) with a mean body mass index of 47.1 ± 8.4 kg/m2 and age of 45.4 ± 11.7 years. In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were 30-day differences in operative time (150.2 ± 72.5 versus 111.8 ± 47.6, P<.001); 30-day rates of reoperation (4.8% versus 3.1%, P = .002); 90-day rates of reoperation (8.8% versus 5.3%, P<.001), complication (15.8% versus 12.5%, P = .001), readmission (8.5% versus 6.4%, P = .005), stricture (3.5% versus 2.0%, P = .001), ulceration (1.2% versus .6%, P = .034), nausea or emesis (6.4% versus 4.36%, P = .001), and anastomotic leak (1.6% versus .2%, P<.001) when comparing Robot-RYGB with LRYGB. After including operative time in propensity matching, there were no significant differences in rates of 30-day readmission or ulceration or 90-day readmission or ulceration; all other differences remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite controlling for patient characteristics, patients undergoing Robot-RYGB developed higher rates of early morbidity compared with LRYGB, suggesting LRYGB may provide improved postoperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to definitively compare these 2 operative approaches.

REBOA for the IVC? Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the inferior vena cava (REBOVC) to abate massive hemorrhage in retrohepatic vena cava injuries.

BACKGROUND: The use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion as a maneuver for occlusion of the aorta is well described. This technique has life-saving potential in other cases of traumatic hemorrhage. Retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) injuries have a high rate of mortality, in part, due to the difficulty in achieving total vascular isolation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of resuscitative balloon occlusion of the IVC to control suprahepatic IVC hemorrhage in a swine model of trauma. METHODS: Thirteen swine were randomly assigned to control (seven animals) versus intervention (six animals). In both groups, an injury was created to the IVC. Hepatic inflow control was obtained via clamping of the hepatoduodenal ligament and infrahepatic IVC. In the intervention group, suprahepatic IVC control was obtained via a resuscitative balloon occlusion of the IVC placed through the femoral vein. In the control group, no suprahepatic IVC control was established. Vital signs, arterial blood gases, and lactate were monitored until death. Primary end points were blood loss and time to death. Lactate, pH, and vital signs were secondary end points. Groups were compared using the χ and the Student t test with significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Intervention group's time to death was significantly prolonged: 59.3 ± 1.6 versus 33.4 ± 12.0 minutes (p = 0.001); and total blood loss was significantly reduced: 333 ± 122 vs 1,701 ± 358 mL (p = 0.001). In the intervention group, five of the six swine (83.3%) were alive at 1 hour compared to zero of seven (0%) in the control group (p = 0.002). There was a trend toward worsening acidosis, hypothermia, elevated lactate, and hemodynamic instability in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the IVC demonstrates superior hemorrhage control and prolonged time to death in a swine model of liver hemorrhage. This technique may be considered as an adjunct to total hepatic vascular isolation in severe liver hemorrhage and could provide additional time needed for definitive repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level II.

A History of Bariatric Surgery: The Maturation of a Medical Discipline.

This article examines the progression of bariatric surgery since its creation more than 60 years ago with a focus on the effect of surgery on weight loss, comorbidity reduction, and safety. The success has been remarkable. It is possible to cure severe obesity, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia in addition to the many other manifestations of the metabolic syndrome with remarkable safety. Equally important are the opportunities for research afforded by the surgery and its outcomes. Until better treatments become available, bariatric surgery is the therapy of choice for patients with morbid obesity for weight control and comorbidity improvement.

Causes of readmission after laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: Identifying failed discharges and opportunities for action.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day hospital readmissions are used as an indicator of quality for health care systems. The timing of readmissions after ventral hernia repair (VHR) is poorly defined, and its relationship to laparoscopic or open technique is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess differences between early and late readmissions after VHR. METHODS: The participant use data set of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project for 2012 was used for this study. Current procedural terminology codes for laparoscopic (n = 3,360) and open VHR (n = 9,009) were used to identify the study population. Thirty-day readmissions were grouped into early and late admissions based on the 25th percentile of days from discharge. RESULTS: Laparoscopic VHR had fewer 30-day readmissions (6.9% vs 9.2%, odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.85). The 2 most common reasons for readmission were wound occurrences (32%) and gastrointestinal disorders (14%; mostly nausea and emesis). Early readmissions occurred in 283 patients (2.3% of the entire cohort). Gastrointestinal disorders were more common in patients with early readmissions compared with late readmissions (39% vs 13%, OR 4.45, 95% CI 3.06-6.47) and were less common after open versus laparoscopic VHR (16% vs 33%, OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.75-3.84). Wound occurrences were more common in patients with late readmissions (52% vs 23%, OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.56-5.29) and more common after open VHR (49.6% vs 24.4%, OR 3.05, 95% CI 2.06-4.52). CONCLUSION: Patients with early and late readmission following VHR demonstrate different characteristics. Causes of readmission are also different and are based on timing and operative technique. Knowing the causes of readmission following VHR can potentially help clinicians prevent readmissions. Attempts to decrease early readmissions after VHR should mainly target prediction, avoidance, and management of gastrointestinal complications; efforts to decrease late readmissions should focus on the management of wound-related complications.

Effect of Surgeon Volume on Sleeve Gastrectomy Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown a relationship between surgeon volume and patient outcomes in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most common bariatric procedure, but there is a little data on surgeon volume and outcomes after SG. We examined the relationship between annual surgeon bariatric volume and 30-day complication rate after SG. METHODS: The Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database for 2011 was used for this study. Using 50 annual cases as a cutoff point, surgeons were classified as low (LV-SG) or high volume SG (HV-SG) and low (LV-RYGB) or high volume RYGB (HV-RYGB) providers. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of surgeon volume on 30-day readmissions, reoperations, and complications following SG while controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 16,547 SG patients. After controlling for baseline characteristics, HV-SG surgeons had lower rates of 30-day complications (OR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.92), reoperation (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.52-0.90), and readmission (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.61-0.88) compared to LV-SG surgeons. HV-RYGB surgeons had lower 30-day complication rates (OR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.69-0.92), but were without differences in reoperation (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.61-1.10) or readmission (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.88-1.27) compared to LV-RYGB surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: High SG volume is associated with improved 30-day readmission, reoperation, and complication rates. Concurrent RYGB volume impacts the 30-day complication rate after SG, but does not affect the readmission or reoperation rate. Our findings suggest that SG-specific volume is important for optimal safety outcomes in SG patients.