Robotic Technology in Emergency General Surgery Cases in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Importance: Although robotic surgery has become an established approach for a wide range of elective operations, data on its utility and outcomes are limited in the setting of emergency general surgery. Objectives: To describe temporal trends in the use of laparoscopic and robotic approaches and compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for 4 common emergent surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of an all-payer discharge database of 829 US facilities was conducted from calendar years 2013 to 2021. Data analysis was performed from July 2022 to November 2023. A total of 1 067 263 emergent or urgent cholecystectomies (n = 793 800), colectomies (n = 89 098), inguinal hernia repairs (n = 65 039), and ventral hernia repairs (n = 119 326) in patients aged 18 years or older were included. Exposure: Surgical approach (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) to emergent or urgent cholecystectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia repair, or ventral hernia repair. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the temporal trend in use of each operative approach (laparoscopic, robotic, or open). Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery and length of stay (both total and postoperative). Temporal trends were measured using linear regression. Propensity score matching was used to compare secondary outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Results: During the study period, the use of robotic surgery increased significantly year-over-year for all procedures: 0.7% for cholecystectomy, 0.9% for colectomy, 1.9% for inguinal hernia repair, and 1.1% for ventral hernia repair. There was a corresponding decrease in the open surgical approach for all cases. Compared with laparoscopy, robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of conversion to open surgery: cholecystectomy, 1.7% vs 3.0% (odds ratio [OR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.49-0.62]); colectomy, 11.2% vs 25.5% (OR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.32-0.42]); inguinal hernia repair, 2.4% vs 10.7% (OR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.26]); and ventral hernia repair, 3.5% vs 10.9% (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.25-0.36]). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter postoperative lengths of stay for colectomy (-0.48 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.35] days), inguinal hernia repair (-0.20 [95% CI, -0.30 to -0.10] days), and ventral hernia repair (-0.16 [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06] days). Conclusions and Relevance: While robotic surgery is still not broadly used for emergency general surgery, the findings of this study suggest it is becoming more prevalent and may be associated with better outcomes as measured by reduced conversion to open surgery and decreased length of stay.

What Does Venous Thromboembolism Mean in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program?

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects an estimated 350,000 to 600,000 individuals and causes approximately 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Postoperative VTE is a core measure reported by The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). The objective of this research was to assess the validity of VTE events reported by NSQIP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using NSQIP data from January 2006 through December 2018 and the electronic health record system data from five adult hospitals in the Johns Hopkins Health System. We included patients aged 18 years and older with a VTE event identified in our NSQIP data set. The main outcome measure was the proportion of valid VTE events, defined as concordant between the NSQIP data set and medical chart review for clinical documentation. RESULTS: Of 474 patients identified in our NSQIP database with a VTE, 26 (5.5%) did not meet the strict NSQIP definition of VTE. Nine had a preoperative history of DVT and no new postoperative event, seven had a negative workup for VTE, six had a peripheral arterial thrombus, two did not receive or refused therapy, one had an aortic thrombus, and one had a venous thrombosis in a surgical flap. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a considerable number of surgical patients misclassified as having a VTE in NSQIP, when did not truly. This highlights the need to improve definition specificity and standardize processes involved in data extraction, validation, and reporting to provide unbiased data for use in quality improvement.

Variation in the use of MRI for cervical spine clearance: an opportunity to simultaneously improve clinical care and decrease cost.

BACKGROUND: For years, controversy has existed about the ideal approach for cervical spine clearance in obtunded, blunt trauma patients. However, recent national guidelines suggest that MRI is not necessary for collar clearance in these patients. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of national variation in the use of MRI and assess patient-specific and hospital-specific factors associated with the practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2012. We included blunt trauma patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to level 1 or 2 trauma centers (TCs), with a Glasgow Coma Scale <8, Abbreviated Injury Scale >3 for the head and mechanically ventilated for more than 72 hours. Multilevel modeling was used to identify patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with spine MRI use. RESULTS: 32 125 obtunded, blunt trauma patients treated at 395 unique TCs met our inclusion criteria. The mean proportion of patients who received MRI over the entire sample was 9.9%. The proportions of patients at each hospital who received a spine MRI ranged from 0.5% to 68.7%. Younger patients, with injuries from motor vehicle collisions and pedestrian injuries, were more likely to receive MRI. When controlling for other variables, Injury Severity Score (ISS) was not associated with MRI use. Hospitals in the Northeast, level 1 TCs and non-teaching hospitals were more likely to obtain MRIs in this patient population. CONCLUSION: After controlling for patient-level characteristics, variation remained in MRI use based on geography, trauma center level and teaching status. This evidence suggests that current national guidelines limiting the use of MRI for cervical spine evaluation following blunt trauma are not being followed consistently. This may be due to physicians not being up to date with best practice care, unavailability of locally adopted protocols in institutions or lack of consensus among clinical providers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Effect of Real-time Patient-Centered Education Bundle on Administration of Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: Numerous interventions have improved prescription of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; however, many prescribed doses are not administered to hospitalized patients, primarily owing to patient refusal. Objective: To evaluate a real-time, targeted, patient-centered education bundle intervention to reduce nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled, preintervention-postintervention comparison trial included 19 652 patient visits on 16 units at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, from April 1 through December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from June 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017, on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: Patients on 4 intervention units received a patient-centered education bundle if a dose of VTE prophylaxis medication was not administered. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Conditional odds of nonadministration of doses of VTE prophylaxis (primary outcome) before and after the intervention on control vs intervention units. Reasons for nonadministration (ie, patient refusal and other) and VTE event rates (secondary outcomes) were compared. Results: A total of 19 652 patient visits where at least 1 dose of VTE prophylaxis was prescribed were included (51.7% men; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [17.1] years). Preintervention and postintervention groups were relatively similar in age, sex, race, and medical or surgery unit. From the preintervention period to the postintervention period, on intervention units, the conditional odds of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration declined significantly (9.1% [95% CI, 5.2%-16.2%] vs 5.6% [95% CI, 3.1%-9.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67) compared with no change on control units (13.6% [95% CI, 9.8%-18.7%] vs 13.3% [95% CI, 9.6%-18.5%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07; P < .001 for interaction). The conditional odds of nonadministration owing to patient refusal decreased significantly on intervention units (5.9% [95% CI, 2.6%-13.6%] vs 3.4% [95% CI, 1.5%-7.8%]; OR, 0.53; 95% CI ,0.43-0.65) compared with no change on control units (8.7% [95% CI, 5.4%-14.0%] vs 8.5% [95% CI, 5.3%-13.8%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08; P < .001 for interaction). On intervention units, the conditional odds of nonadministration owing to reasons other than patient refusal decreased (2.3% [95% CI, 1.5%-3.4%] vs 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.6%]; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94), with no change on control units (3.4% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.4%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 2.6%-4.2%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; P = .04 for interaction). No differential effect occurred on medical vs surgical units (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23; P = .41 for interaction). There was no statistical difference in the proportion of VTE events among patients on intervention vs control units (0.30% vs 0.18%; OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.23). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a targeted patient-centered education bundle significantly reduced nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients. This novel strategy improves health care quality by leveraging electronic data to target interventions in real time for at-risk patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02402881.