Assessment of guidelines for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review and evaluation using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II).

BACKGROUND: In recent years, multiple guidelines on bariatric and metabolic surgery were published, however, their quality remains unknown, leaving providers with uncertainty when using them to make perioperative decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of existing guidelines for perioperative bariatric surgery care. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE were conducted from January 2010 to October 2022 for bariatric clinical practice guidelines. Guideline evaluation was carried out using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1483 citations, of which, 26 were included in final analysis. The overall median domain scores for guidelines were: (1) scope and purpose: 87.5% (IQR: 57-94%), (2) stakeholder involvement: 49% (IQR: 40-64%), (3) rigor of development: 42.5% (IQR: 22-68%), (4) clarity of presentation: 85% (IQR: 81-90%), (5) applicability: 6% (IQR: 3-16%), (6) editorial independence: 50% (IQR: 48-67%), (7) overall impressions: 48% (IQR: 33-67%). Only six guidelines achieved an overall score >70%. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery guidelines effectively outlined their aim and presented recommendations. However, many did not adequately seek patient input, state search criteria, use evidence rating tools, and consider resource implications. Future guidelines should reference the AGREE II framework in study design.

Fragility of Statistically Significant Outcomes in Colonic Diverticular Disease Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The p value has been criticized as an oversimplified determination of whether a treatment effect exists. One alternative is the fragility index. It is a representation of the minimum number of nonevents that would need to be converted to events to increase the p value above 0.05. OBJECTIVE: To determine the fragility index of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of interventions for patients with diverticular disease since 2010 to assess the robustness of current evidence. DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to August 2022. SETTINGS: Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized trials conducted between 2010 and 2022 with parallel, superiority designs evaluating interventions in patients with diverticular disease. Only randomized trials with dichotomous primary outcomes with an associated p value of <0.05 were considered for inclusion. PARTICIPANTS: Any surgical or medical intervention for patients with diverticular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The fragility index was determined by adding events and subtracting nonevents from the groups with the smaller number of events. Events were added until the p value exceeded 0.05. The smallest number of events required was considered the fragility index. RESULTS: After screening 1271 citations, 15 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the studies evaluated surgical interventions and 6 evaluated medical interventions. The mean number of patients randomly assigned and lost to follow-up per randomized controlled trial was 92 (SD 35.3) and 9 (SD 11.4), respectively. The median fragility index was 1 (range, 0-5). The fragility indices for the included studies did not correlate significantly with any study characteristics. LIMITATIONS: Small sample, heterogeneity, and lack of inclusion of studies with continuous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The randomized trials evaluating surgical and medical interventions for diverticular disease are not robust. Changing a single-outcome event in most studies was sufficient to make a statistically significant study finding not significant. See Video Abstract . FRAGILIDAD DE LOS RESULTADOS ESTADSTICAMENTE SIGNIFICATIVOS EN ENSAYOS ALEATORIOS DE ENFERMEDAD DIVERTICULAR DEL COLON UNA REVISIN SISTEMTICA: ANTECEDENTES:El valor p ha sido criticado por una determinación demasiado simplificada de si existe un efecto del tratamiento. Una alternativa es el Índice de Fragilidad. Es una representación del número mínimo de no eventos que deberían convertirse en eventos para aumentar el valor p por encima de 0,05.OBJETIVO:Determinar el IF de ensayos controlados aleatorios que evalúan la eficacia de las intervenciones para pacientes con enfermedad diverticular desde 2010 para evaluar la solidez de la evidencia actual.FUENTES DE DATOS:Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE, Embase y CENTRAL desde el inicio hasta agosto de 2022.SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS:Los artículos eran elegibles para su inclusión si eran ensayos aleatorizados realizados entre 2010 y 2022 con diseños paralelos de superioridad que evaluaran intervenciones en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. Sólo se consideraron para su inclusión los ensayos aleatorizados con resultados primarios dicotómicos con un valor de p asociado menor que 0,05.INTERVENCIÓNES:Cualquier intervención quirúrgica o médica para pacientes con enfermedad diverticular.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:El índice de fragilidad se determinó sumando eventos y restando no eventos de los grupos con el menor número de eventos. Se agregaron eventos hasta que el valor p superó 0,05. El menor número de eventos requeridos se consideró índice de fragilidad.RESULTADOS:Después de examinar 1271 citas, 15 ensayos aleatorios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Nueve de los estudios evaluaron intervenciones quirúrgicas y seis evaluaron intervenciones médicas. El número medio de pacientes aleatorizados y perdidos durante el seguimiento por ECA fue 92 (DE 35,3) y 9 (DE 11,4), respectivamente. La mediana del índice de fragilidad fue 1 (rango: 0-5). Los índices de fragilidad de los estudios incluidos no se correlacionaron significativamente con ninguna característica del estudio.LIMITACIONES:Muestra pequeña, heterogeneidad y falta de inclusión de estudios con resultados continuos.CONCLUSIONES:Los ensayos aleatorios que evalúan las intervenciones quirúrgicas y médicas para la enfermedad diverticular no son sólidos. Cambiar un solo evento de resultado en la mayoría de los estudios fue suficiente para que un hallazgo estadísticamente significativo del estudio no fuera significativo. (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Assessing the Modified Frailty Index and Post-Operative Outcomes in Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies identifying predictors of postoperative outcomes in adhesive small bowel obstruction are limited. This study investigates the efficacy of the modified frailty index (mFI)to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction after failed trial of nonoperative management between January 2015 and December 2020 was performed. Impact of frailty status using the mFI, stratified as frail (≥0.27) and robust (<0.27), on postoperative morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and discharge destination was evaluated using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Ninety-two robust patients (mean age 62.4 y, 68% female) and 41 frail patients (mean age 81.7 y, 63% female) were included. On simple stratification, frail patients had significantly increased 30-d morbidity (overall morbidity 80% versus 49%) and need for higher level of care on discharge (41% versus 9%). However, on multiple regression, functional dependence but not the mFI, was independently associated with worse 30-d overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 3.97, confidence interval [CI] 1.29-12.19) and lower likelihood of returning to preoperative disposition (OR 0.21, CI 0.05-0.91). The delay in operation beyond 5 d was independently associated with worse 30-d outcomes including overall morbidity and mortality (OR 7.54, CI 2.13-26.73) and decreased return to preoperative disposition (OR 0.14, CI 0.04-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: The mFI, although promising, was not independently predictive of outcomes following surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Further adequately powered studies are required.

Short-term postoperative outcomes for obese versus non-obese inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing bowel resection: a propensity score matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Up to 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are obese. Obesity is a well-known risk factor for increased perioperative morbidity, but this risk has never been quantified in IBD patients undergoing abdominal surgery using the United States National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. This study aims to compare postoperative morbidity between obese and non-obese patients undergoing bowel resection for IBD using recent NIS data. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent bowel resection for IBD from 2015 to 2019 were identified in the NIS using ICD-10-CM coding. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese groups, then propensity score matched (PSM) for demographic, operative, and hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative in-hospital mortality, system-specific postoperative complications, total admission healthcare costs, and length of stay (LOS). Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 6601 non-obese patients and 671 obese patients were identified. The PSM cohort included 659 patients per group. Obese patients had significantly increased odds of experiencing postoperative in-hospital morbidity (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.03, p = 0.010) compared to non-obese patients. Specifically, obese patients experienced increased gastrointestinal complications (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.00-2.24, p = 0.050), and genitourinary complications (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12-2.61, p = 0.013). There were no differences in total admission healthcare costs (MD - $2256.32, 95% CI - 19,144.54-14,631.9, p = 0.79) or LOS (MD 0.16 days, 95% CI - 0.93-1.27, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Obese IBD patients are at greater risk of postoperative in-hospital morbidity than non-obese IBD patients. This supports targeted preoperative weight loss protocols for IBD patients to optimize surgical outcomes.

The impact of operative approach for obese colorectal cancer patients: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for the development of colorectal cancer. As such, patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer have increasingly higher body mass indices (BMIs). The advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques in recent years have helped surgeons circumvent some of the challenges associated with operating in the setting of obesity. While previous studies suggest that laparoscopy improves outcomes compared with open surgery in obese patients, this has never been established at the population level. Therefore, we designed a retrospective database study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) with the aim of comparing laparoscopic with open approaches for obese patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2015 to 2019 was conducted including patients with a BMI of greater than 30 kg/m2 undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative system-specific complications, total admission healthcare cost and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: A total of 4742 patients underwent open surgery and 3231 underwent laparoscopic surgery. We observed a significant decrease in overall postoperative morbidity [17.5% vs. 31.4%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.64; p < 0.001], gastrointestinal morbidity (8.1% vs. 14.5%, aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69; p < 0.001) and genitourinary morbidity (10.1% vs. 18.6%, aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) with the use of laparoscopy. Postoperative LOS was 1.7 days shorter (95% CI 1.5-2.0, p < 0.001) and cost of admission was decreased by $9106 (95% CI $4638-$13 573, p < 0.001) with laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for obese patients with colorectal cancer is associated with significantly decreased postoperative morbidity and improved healthcare resource utilization compared with open surgery. Laparoscopic approaches should be relied upon whenever feasible for these patients.

Financial toxicity among patients undergoing resectional surgery for inflammatory bowel disease in the United States.

AIM: Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that patients experience due to medical treatment. Financial toxicity has yet to be characterized among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surgical management of their disease. This study investigated the risk of financial toxicity associated with undergoing surgery for IBD. METHODS: This study used a retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2019. Adult patients who underwent IBD-related surgery were identified using the International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) diagnostic and procedure codes and stratified into privately insured and uninsured groups. The primary outcome was risk of financial toxicity, defined as hospital admission charges that constituted 40% or more of patient's post-subsistence income. Secondary outcomes included total hospital admission cost and predictors of financial toxicity. RESULTS: The analytical cohort consisted of 6412 privately insured and 3694 uninsured patients. Overall median hospital charges were $21 628 (interquartile range $14 758-$35 386). Risk of financial toxicity was 86.5% among uninsured patients and 0% among insured patients. Predictors of financial toxicity included emergency admission, being in the lowest residential income quartile and having ulcerative colitis (compared to Crohn's disease). Additional predictors were being of Black race or male sex. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is a serious consequence of IBD-related surgery among uninsured patients. Given the pervasive nature of this consequence, future steps to support uninsured patients receiving surgery, in particular emergency surgery, related to their IBD are needed to protect this group from financial risk.

Evaluating frailty using the modified frailty index for colonic diverticular disease surgery: analysis of the national inpatient sample 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity; however, the use of the modified frailty index (mFI-11) to assess patients undergoing surgery for diverticular disease has not been widely assessed. This paper aims to examine frailty, evaluated by mFI-11, to assess postoperative morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing operative intervention for colonic diverticular disease. METHODS: We used data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (October 1, 2015-December 31, 2019). ICD-10-CM codes were utilized to identify a cohort of adult patients with a primary admission diagnosis of diverticulitis. mFI-11 items were adapted to correspond with ICD-10-CM codes. Patients were stratified into robust (mFI < 0.27) and frail (mFI ≥ 0.27) groups. Primary outcomes were in-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included system-specific postoperative complications, length of stay (LOS), total admission cost, and discharge disposition. Multivariable regression models were fit. RESULTS: Of the 26,826 patients, there were 24,194 patients with mFI-11 < 0.27 (i.e., robust) and 2,632 patients with mFI-11 ≥ 0.27 (i.e., frail). Adjusted analysis showed significant increases in postoperative mortality (aOR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38-3.38, p = 0.001) and overall postoperative morbidity (aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.65-2.06, p < 0.001). LOS was higher in the frail group (MD 1.78 days, 95% CI 1.46-2.11, p < 0.001) as well as total cost (MD $25,495.19, 95% CI $19,851.63-$31,138.75, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the elective setting, a high mFI-11 (i.e., presence of the variables comprising the index) could alert clinicians to the possibility of implementing preoperative optimization strategies. In the emergent setting, a high mFI-11 may help guide prognostication for these vulnerable patients.

Patient reported symptom burden amongst immigrant and Canadian long-term resident women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Immigrants are susceptible to marginalization due to social isolation, economic disadvantage and systemic bias. Our goal was to compare symptom burden between immigrant and long-term resident women undergoing breast cancer surgery in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A population-level retrospective cohort-study using administrative databases was conducted. Women who underwent surgery for newly diagnosed breast cancer and were treated at regional cancer centers between 2010 and 2016 were included. The primary outcome was a moderate or severe (≥ 4) symptom score on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Scale (ESAS). RESULTS: There were 12,250 (87.2%) long-term Canadian residents and 1,806(12.8%) immigrants. Immigrants were younger (mean age 53 vs. 61 years); had a higher proportion residing in a lowest income quintile neighbourhood (22.2% vs 15.4%); were less often on a primary-care physician roster (83.7% vs. 90.4%); and were less often diagnosed with Stage I/II disease (80.9% vs. 84.6%) (all p < 0.01). The proportion of women with scores ≥ 4 was significantly higher amongst immigrant women for 7/9 symptom categories; with the largest differences for depression (24.9% vs. 20.2%, p < 0.01) and pain (28.0% vs. 22.4%, p < 0.01). On multivariable regression analysis, immigration status was associated with scores ≥ 4 for pain (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.23). There was an association between moderate/severe pain and region of origin, but not length of stay in Canada or immigration class. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing symptom burden amongst immigrant and non-immigrant women with breast cancer at a population-level. Immigrant women with breast cancer undergoing surgery were found to have a higher burden of pain.

Fragility of statistically significant outcomes in randomized trials comparing bariatric surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as high-level evidence, but the strength of their P values can be difficult to ascertain. The Fragility Index (FI) is a novel metric that evaluates the frailty of trial findings. It is defined as the minimum number of patients required to change from a non-event to event for the findings to lose statistical significance. This study aims to characterize the robustness of bariatric surgery RCTs by examining their FIs. METHODS: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from January 2000 to February 2022 for RCTs comparing two bariatric surgeries with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes. Bivariate correlation was conducted to identify associations between FI and trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 35 RCTs were included with a median sample size of 80 patients (Interquartile range [IQR] 58-109). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-5), indicating that altering the status of two patients in one treatment arm would overturn the statistical significance of results. Subgroup analyses of RCTs evaluating diabetes-related outcomes produced a FI of 4 (IQR 2-6.5), while RCTs comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy had an FI of 2 (IQR 0.5-5). Increasing FI was found to be correlated with decreasing P value, increasing sample size, increasing number of events, and increasing journal impact factor. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery RCTs are fragile, with only a few patients required to change from non-events to events to reverse the statistical significance of most trials. Future research should examine the use of FI in trial design.

HEmoRhoidal disease management with Band ligation versus polidocanol Sclerotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis (the HerBS Review).

PURPOSE: Symptomatic internal hemorrhoids affect up to 40% of people in Western society. Patients with grade I-III hemorrhoids, who fail lifestyle and medical management, may benefit from office-based procedures. As per the American Society of Colon and Rectum Surgeons (ASCRS), rubber band ligation (RBL) is the first-line office-based treatment. Polidocanol sclerotherapy is a relatively new approach for these patients. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy of RBL and polidocanol sclerotherapy with the treatment of symptomatic grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. METHODS: The systematic review was completed by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to August 2022 for prospective studies comparing RBL and polidocanol sclerotherapy or evaluating the efficacy of polidocanol sclerotherapy alone for adult (> 18 years) patients with grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. Treatments were evaluated for therapeutic success and post-procedure morbidity. RESULTS: Of 155 citations obtained, 10 studies (3 comparative and 7 single-arm studies) and 4 abstracts (2 comparative and 2 single arm) were included in the study. The patients undergoing sclerotherapy had a 93% (151/163) therapeutic success rate compared to 75% (68/91) in the RBL group (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.48-7.74, p < 0.01). The post-procedure morbidity was 8% (17/200) in the sclerotherapy group and 18% (23/128) in the RBL group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15-1.82, p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: This study highlights that polidocanol sclerotherapy may be associated with higher therapeutic success in patients with symptomatic grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. Further evaluations in the form of randomized trials are required to evaluate patient populations, which may benefit more from sclerotherapy.

Perioperative intravenous dexamethasone for patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Dexamethasone is a glucocorticoid that is often administered intraoperatively as prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined its use in colorectal surgery. This systematic review aims to assess the postoperative impacts of dexamethasone use in colorectal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to January 2023. Articles were included if they compared perioperative intravenous dexamethasone to a control group in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative morbidity. The primary outcomes were prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) and PONV. Secondary outcomes included postoperative infectious morbidity and return of bowel function. A pair-wise meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence were performed. RESULTS: After reviewing 3476 relevant citations, seven articles (five RCTs, two retrospective cohorts) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 1568 patients received perioperative dexamethasone and 1459 patients received a control. Patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone experienced significantly less PPOI based on moderate-quality evidence (three studies, OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.28-0.74, p < 0.01). Time to first flatus was significantly reduced with intravenous dexamethasone. There was no difference between groups in terms of PONV (four studies, OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.27, p = 0.55), postoperative morbidity (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.63-1.39, p = 0.74), or rate of postoperative infectious complications (seven studies, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.55-1.01, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This review presents moderate-quality evidence that perioperative intravenous dexamethasone may reduce PPOI and enhance the return of bowel function following elective colorectal surgery. There was no significant observed effect on PONV or postoperative infectious complications.

Management of left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions with curative intent: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several management options exist for colonic decompression in the setting of malignant large bowel obstruction, including oncologic resection, surgical diversion, and SEMS as a bridge-to-surgery. Consensus has yet to be reached on optimal treatment pathways. The aim of the present study was to perform a network meta-analysis comparing short-term postoperative morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes between oncologic resection, surgical diversion, and self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction with curative intent. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared two or more of the following in patients presenting with curative left-sided malignant colorectal obstruction: (1) emergent oncologic resection; (2) surgical diversion; and/or (3) SEMS. The primary outcome was overall 90-day postoperative morbidity. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. Random-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: From 1277 citations, 53 studies with 9493 patients undergoing urgent oncologic resection, 1273 patients undergoing surgical diversion, and 2548 patients undergoing SEMS were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in 90-day postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing SEMS compared to urgent oncologic resection (OR0.34, 95%CrI0.01-0.98). Insufficient RCT data pertaining to overall survival (OS) precluded network meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis demonstrated decreased five-year OS for patients undergoing urgent oncologic resection compared to surgical diversion (OR0.44, 95%CI0.28-0.71, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Bridge-to-surgery interventions may offer short- and long-term benefits compared to urgent oncologic resection for malignant colorectal obstruction and should be increasingly considered in this patient population. Further prospective study comparing surgical diversion and SEMS is needed.

Video-based coaching for surgical residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Video-based coaching (VBC) is used to supplement current teaching methods in surgical education and may be useful in competency-based frameworks. Whether VBC can effectively improve surgical skill in surgical residents has yet to be fully elucidated. The objective of this study is to compare surgical residents receiving and not receiving VBC in terms of technical surgical skill. METHODS: The following databases were searched from database inception to October 2021: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. Articles were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical residents receiving and not receiving VBC. The primary outcome, as defined prior to data collection, was change in objective measures of technical surgical skill following implementation of either VBC or control. A pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used as the primary outcome measure to account for differences in objective surgical skill evaluation tools. RESULTS: From 2734 citations, 11 RCTs with 157 residents receiving VBC and 141 residents receiving standard surgical teaching without VBC were included. There was no significant difference in post-coaching scores on objective surgical skill evaluation tools between groups (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.01, p = 0.05, I2 = 74%). The improvement in scores pre- and post-intervention was significantly greater in residents receiving VBC compared to those not receiving VBC (SMD 1.62, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.63, p = 0.002, I2 = 85%). These results were unchanged with leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis according to operative setting. CONCLUSION: VBC can improve objective surgical skills in surgical residents of various levels. The benefit may be most substantial for trainees with lower baseline levels of objective skill. Further studies are required to determine the impact of VBC on competency-based frameworks.

Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Utility of robotic over laparoscopic approach has been an area of debate across all surgical specialties over the past decade. The fragility index (FI) is a metric that evaluates the frailty of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings by altering the status of patients from an event to non-event until significance is lost. This study aims to evaluate the robustness of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominopelvic surgeries through the FI. METHODS: A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, gynecology, and urology. The FI and reverse fragility Index (RFI) metrics were used to assess the strength of findings reported by RCTs, and bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze relationships between FI and trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 21 RCTs were included, with a median sample size of 89 participants (Interquartile range [IQR] 62-126). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-15) and median RFI 5.5 (IQR 4-8.5). The median FI was 3 (IQR 1-15) for general surgery (n = 7), 2 (0.5-3.5) for gynecology (n = 4), and 0 (IQR 0-8.5) for urology RCTs (n = 4). Correlation was found between increasing FI and decreasing p-value, but not sample size, number of outcome events, journal impact factor, loss to follow-up, or risk of bias. CONCLUSION: RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominal surgery did not prove to be very robust. While possible advantages of robotic surgery may be emphasized, it remains novel and requires further concrete RCT data.

Gastrojejunostomy versus endoscopic stenting for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Though gastrojejunostomy (GJ) has been a standard palliative procedure for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), endoscopic stenting (ES) has shown to provide benefits due to its non-invasive approach. The aim of this review is to perform a comprehensive evaluation of ES versus GJ for the palliation of malignant GOO. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched and comparative studies of adult GOO patients undergoing ES or GJ were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were survival time and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, reinterventions, days until oral food tolerance, postoperative adjuvant palliative chemotherapy, postoperative morbidities, length of stay (LOS), and costs. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse-variance random effects were performed. RESULTS: After identifying 2222 citations, 39 full-text articles fit the inclusion criteria. In total, 3128 ES patients (41.4% female, age: 68.0 years) and 2116 GJ patients (40.4% female, age: 66.8 years) were included. ES patients experienced a shorter survival time (mean difference -24.77 days, 95% Cl - 45.11 to - 4.43, p = 0.02) and were less likely to undergo adjuvant palliative chemotherapy (risk ratio 0.81, 95% Cl 0.70 to 0.93, p = 0.004). The ES group had a shorter LOS, shorter time to oral intake of liquids and solids, and less surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.30, 95% Cl 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01). The patients in the ES group were at greater risk of requiring reintervention (risk ratio 2.60, 95% Cl 1.87 to 3.63, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ES results in less postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS when compared to GJ, however, this may be at the cost of decreased initiation of adjuvant palliative chemotherapy and overall survival, as well as increased risk of reintervention. Both techniques are likely appropriate in select clinical scenarios.

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). CONCLUSIONS: GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

Bariatric Surgery and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease:: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery has been shown to significantly reduce cardiovascular risk factors. However, whether surgery can reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease, remains poorly understood. The present study aims to determine the association between bariatric surgery and MACE among patients with cardiovascular disease and severe obesity. METHODS: This was a propensity score-matched cohort study using province-wide multiple-linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients with previous ischemic heart disease or heart failure who received bariatric surgery were matched on age, sex, heart failure history, and a propensity score to similar controls from a primary care medical record database in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the incidence of extended MACE (first occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, cerebrovascular events, and heart failure hospitalization). Secondary outcome included 3-component MACE (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality). Outcomes were evaluated through a combination of matching via propensity score and subsequent multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 2638 patients (n=1319 in each group) were included, with a median follow-up time of 4.6 years. The primary outcome occurred in 11.5% (151/1319) of the surgery group and 19.6% (259/1319) of the controls (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.48-0.71]; P<0.001). The association was notable for those with heart failure (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]; P<0.001; absolute risk difference, 19.3% [95% CI, 12.0%-26.7%]) and in those with ischemic heart disease (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.74]; P<0.001; absolute risk difference, 7.5% [95% CI, 4.7%-10.5%]). Surgery was also associated with a lower incidence of the secondary outcome (HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.52-0.84]; P=0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.15-0.80]; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MACE in patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity. These findings require confirmation by a large-scale randomized trial.

Sugammadex in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, reversal of neuromuscular blocking agents following the completion of surgery was achieved with cholinesterase inhibitors. Recently, sugammadex has been increasingly relied upon. Sugammadex is a γ-cyclodextrin molecule that rapidly reverses steroidal neuromuscular blocking drugs. Its use following colorectal surgery has become more common, and while the rapidity of reversal is undoubtedly improved, whether sugammadex impacts clinical postoperative outcomes is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare postoperative outcomes in patients receiving sugammadex to those receiving a control during colorectal surgery. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared sugammadex with a control (e.g., neostigmine, pyridostigmine, placebo) in patients undergoing colorectal surgery in terms of total hospital length of stay and frequency of postoperative adverse respiratory events. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. RESULTS: From 269 citations, five studies with 535 patients receiving sugammadex (45.8% female; mean age: 64.4) and 569 patients receiving a control (45.0% female; mean age: 64.3) were included. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the two groups (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.25, P = 0.95). The risk of adverse respiratory events postoperatively was similar between the two groups (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.81-2.19, P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: There are no current data to suggest an improvement in postoperative outcomes with the use of sugammadex in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This study is limited by the number of included studies. Further prospective studies comparing sugammadex and a control in colorectal surgery is required.

Bariatric Center Designation and Outcomes Following Repeat Abdominal Surgery in Bariatric Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Repeat abdominal surgery in the bariatric surgery patient population may be challenging for non-bariatric-accredited institutions. The impact of regionalized bariatric care on clinical outcomes for bariatric surgery patients requiring repeat abdominal surgery is currently unknown. This study aims to investigate the association between bariatric center designation and clinical outcomes following hepatobiliary, hernia, and upper and lower gastrointestinal operations among patients with prior bariatric surgery. METHODS: This is a cohort study of a large sample of Ontario residents who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2017. A comprehensive list of eligible abdominal operations was captured using administrative data. The primary outcome was 30-d complications. Secondary outcomes included 30-d mortality, readmission, and length of stay. RESULTS: Among the 3301 study patients, 1305 (40%) received their first abdominal reoperation following bariatric surgery at a designated bariatric center. Nonbariatric center designation was not associated with significantly higher rates of 30-d complications (5.73% versus 5.72%), mortality (0.80% versus 0.77%), readmissions (1.11% versus 1.85%), or median postoperative length of stay (4 versus 4 d). After grouping the category of reoperations, upper gastrointestinal (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.11) and abdominal wall hernia surgery (OR 0.52, CI 0.27-0.99) showed a lower adjusted OR for complications among bariatric centers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that after adjustment for case-mix and patient characteristics, bariatric surgery patients undergoing repeat abdominal surgery at nonbariatric centers is not associated with higher proportion of complications or mortality. Complex hernia surgery may be considered the most appropriate for referral.

Posterior mesorectal thickness as a predictor of increased operative time in rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer surgery, larger mesorectal fat area has been shown to correlate with increased intraoperative difficulty. Prior studies were mostly in Asian populations with average body mass indices (BMIs) less than 25 kg/m2. This study aimed to define the relationship between radiological variables on pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative difficulty in a North American population. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study analyzing all patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2015 until December 2019. Eleven pelvic magnetic resonance imaging measures were defined a priori according to previous literature and measured in each of the included patients. Operative time in minutes and intraoperative blood loss in milliliters were utilized as the primary indicators of intraoperative difficulty. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (39.8% female, mean age: 62.4 ± 11.6 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean BMI of included patients was 29.4 ± 6.2 kg/m2. Mean operative times were 227.2 ± 65.1 min and 340.6 ± 78.7 min for LARs and TaTMEs, respectively. On multivariable analysis including patient, tumor, and MRI factors, increasing posterior mesorectal thickness was significantly associated with increased operative time (p = 0.04). Every 1 cm increase in posterior mesorectal thickness correlated with a 26 min and 6 s increase in operative time. None of the MRI measurements correlated strongly with BMI. CONCLUSION: As the number of obese rectal cancer patients continues to expand, strategies aimed at optimizing their surgical management are paramount. While increasing BMI is an important preoperative risk factor, the present study identifies posterior mesorectal thickness on MRI as a reliable and easily measurable parameter to help predict operative difficulty. Ultimately, this may in turn serve as an indicator of which patients would benefit most from pre-operative resources aimed at optimizing operative conditions and postoperative recovery.