Total Psoas Area is a Measure for Deconditioning in Colorectal Surgery Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Physical fitness is an important prognostic indicator for surgical outcomes. An objective measure of deconditioning is needed to determine patient fitness. This study aims to describe a methodology to standardize psoas measurements and correlate them with postoperative outcomes. METHODS: After obtaining IRB approval, the ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients over 18 years, undergoing colectomies for non-trauma indications from 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2018. Upon CT imaging, the psoas muscle was identified at the lumbosacral joint. Imaging software calculated the total cross-sectional area of the left and right psoas muscle and was normalized by dividing by height squared to achieve our Total Psoas Index (TPI) in cm2/m2. RESULTS: 1173 patients met study criteria; all had TPI calculated. A TPI equal to or below the gender-specific 25th percentile defined sarcopenia. In total, 151 females (24.6%) and 137 males (24.5%) were classified as sarcopenic. TPI was significantly associated with multiple NSQIP 30-day outcomes and mortality in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring TPI at the lumbosacral joint is an appropriate method for determining sarcopenia.

Totally extraperitoneal approach for open complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is typically performed via a transabdominal approach and the peritoneal cavity is opened and explored. Totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair (TEVHR) facilitates dissection of the hernia sac without entering the peritoneal cavity. This study evaluates our experience of TEVHR, addressing technique, decision-making, and outcomes. METHODS: This is an IRB-approved retrospective review of open TEVHR performed between January 2012 and December 2016. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, hospital readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients underwent TEVHR (84 males, 82 females) with a mean BMI range of 30-39. Eighty-six percent of patients underwent repair for primary or first-time recurrent hernia, and 89% CDC wound class I. Median hernia defect size was 135 cm2. Hernia repair techniques included Rives-Stoppa (34%) or transversus abdominis release (57%). Median operative time was 175 min, median blood loss 100 mL, and median length of stay 4 days. There were no unplanned bowel resections or enterotomies. Four cases required intraperitoneal entry to explant prior mesh. Wound complication rate was 27%: 9% seroma drainage, 18% superficial surgical site infection (SSI), and 2% deep space SSI. Five patients (3%) required reoperation for wound or mesh complications. Over the study, four patients were hospitalized for postoperative small bowel obstruction and managed non-operatively. Of the 166 patients, 96%, 54%, and 44% were seen at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. Recurrences were observed in 2% of patients at 12-month follow-up. One patient developed an enterocutaneous fistula 28 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: TEVHR is a safe alternative to traditional transabdominal approaches to ventral hernia repair. The extraperitoneal dissection facilitates hernia repair, avoiding peritoneal entry and adhesiolysis, resulting in decreased operative times. In our study, there was low risk for postoperative bowel obstruction and enterotomy. Future prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to draw definitive conclusions.

Significant morbidity is associated with proximal fecal diversion among high-risk patients who undergo colectomy: A NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: The value of proximal fecal diversion for patients undergoing colectomies is an ongoing debate. Previous studies have shown a benefit in decreased anastomotic leak rates and mitigation of the morbidity of a leak, especially in high-risk populations. However, more recent data suggests increased morbidity with fecal diversion, creating a complication with an unknown degree of anastomotic leak reduction. Therefore, we aimed to determine the impact on morbidity of a diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) in patients with a high risk of anastomotic leak. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database was queried (via CPT code) for adult patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent a colectomy only or colectomy with ileostomy (CWI) between Jan 2013 and Dec 2016. We compared thirty-day outcomes between a 3:1 propensity-matched colectomy only group to patients who had a CWI. We used risk factors for anastomotic leak as a basis of our propensity match which included preoperative smoking, steroid use, preoperative weight loss, preoperative transfusion, hypoalbuminemia, and leukocytosis; intraoperative match variables included indication for surgery, wound class, duration of operation, primary CPT code, elective vs. emergent, and inpatient vs. outpatient surgery. RESULTS: We identified 39,588 patients from the NSQIP database who had a colectomy only or a CWI. The colectomy only group was older (age 63 vs 52 years p < 0.001), overweight (BMI 34 vs 26.7, p < 0.001), more likely to be diabetic (16% vs 9.5%, p < 0.001) and hypertensive (49.3% vs 31.4%). However, the CWI group had higher steroid use (36.8% vs 10%, p < 0.001), preoperative sepsis (13.2% vs 2.5%, p < 0.001), smoking rate (25.7% vs 15.4%, p < 0.001), and preoperative weight loss (12.5% vs 4.9%, p < 0.001). Our propensity analysis matched 2274 colectomy only patients and 758 CWI patients. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. While the mortality rate was similar between groups (1.5% vs 1.8%, p = 0.8), CWI patients had longer length of stay (median 8 vs 7 days, p < 0.001), higher renal injury rates (3.2% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), higher readmission rates (18.8% vs 11%, p < 0.001) and higher overall NSQIP morbidity (44.5% vs 37.6%, p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.8% in the CWI group and 5.1% in the colectomy only group (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Significant thirty-day morbidity exists with a diverting ileostomy among high-risk colectomy patients with minimal benefit in anastomotic leak rates.

Anterior versus Posterior Component Separation: Which Is Better?

In the field of hernia surgery, there have been many advances in techniques that have provided the surgeon with a variety of options to repair the difficult abdominal wall hernia. Regardless of the technique, the ultimate goal was to provide a tension-free repair, which attempts to approximate the midline while returning abdominal wall musculature to its normal anatomic position, thus providing the patient with both a cosmetic and durable result with or without the use of a prosthetic reinforcement. Component separation techniques have been widely popularized as techniques to repair complex hernias and are frequently categorized based upon the anatomic location of the myofascial release. CSTs are generally categorized as either an anterior component separation or posterior component separation based upon the surgical approach to the abdominal wall musculature. This report objectively outlines the various techniques of component separation and specifically compares the outcomes among techniques to facilitate decision making in abdominal wall reconstruction.

Disease Ontology: a backbone for disease semantic integration.

The Disease Ontology (DO) database (http://disease-ontology.org) represents a comprehensive knowledge base of 8043 inherited, developmental and acquired human diseases (DO version 3, revision 2510). The DO web browser has been designed for speed, efficiency and robustness through the use of a graph database. Full-text contextual searching functionality using Lucene allows the querying of name, synonym, definition, DOID and cross-reference (xrefs) with complex Boolean search strings. The DO semantically integrates disease and medical vocabularies through extensive cross mapping and integration of MeSH, ICD, NCI's thesaurus, SNOMED CT and OMIM disease-specific terms and identifiers. The DO is utilized for disease annotation by major biomedical databases (e.g. Array Express, NIF, IEDB), as a standard representation of human disease in biomedical ontologies (e.g. IDO, Cell line ontology, NIFSTD ontology, Experimental Factor Ontology, Influenza Ontology), and as an ontological cross mappings resource between DO, MeSH and OMIM (e.g. GeneWiki). The DO project (http://diseaseontology.sf.net) has been incorporated into open source tools (e.g. Gene Answers, FunDO) to connect gene and disease biomedical data through the lens of human disease. The next iteration of the DO web browser will integrate DO's extended relations and logical definition representation along with these biomedical resource cross-mappings.