Hernia Recurrence and Complications After Abdominal Reconstruction With Reinforced Versus Nonreinforced Biologic Mesh.

INTRODUCTION: Both biologic and permanent (synthetic) meshes are used for abdominal wall reconstruction. Biologic mesh has the advantage of eventual incorporation, which makes it generally preferred in contaminated patients compared with synthetic mesh (Ann Surg. 2013;257:991-996). However, synthetic mesh has been shown to have decreased long-term hernia recurrence despite increased complications (JAMA Surg. 2022;157:293-301). Ovitex (TelaBio, Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand) is a combined reinforced biologic mesh with a permanent Prolene suture weave that theoretically combines incorporation with a long-term strength component. We hypothesize that a reinforced biologic will have a similar complication profile but decreased long-term hernia recurrence. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed from January 2013 to January 2022. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes including 90-day complications and recurrence were compared. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed with χ2 and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, respectively. Predictors of postoperative complications and hernia recurrence were analyzed via univariate logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression with backward stepwise selection with a threshold of P < 0.2. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four patients underwent abdominal wall reconstruction biologic mesh (Strattice, Allergan; FlexHD, MTF Biologics; Alloderm, Allergan; Surgisis Gold, Cook Biotech; Ovitex, Telabio) with retrorectus (66.5%) or intraperitoneal (33.5%) mesh placement. Sixty-six of these used reinforced biologic mesh (Ovitex, TelaBio). Baseline characteristics were comparable including preoperative hernia size measured on CT. The mean follow-up time was 343 days. The majority of patients underwent component separation (80.3% bilateral, 11.4% unilateral, 8.3% none). On univariate analysis, reinforced biologic mesh did not impact 90-day complication rates (P = 0.391) or hernia recurrence rates (P = 0.349). On multivariate analysis, reinforced mesh had no impact on complication or recurrence rates (P > 0.2). A previous history of infected mesh was an independent risk factor for hernia recurrence (P = 0.019). Nonreinforced biologics were more likely to be used in instances of previous mesh infection (P = 0.025), bowel resection (P = 0.026), and concomitantly at the time of stoma takedown (P = 0.04). Reinforced biologics were more likely to be used with a history of previous hernia repair with recurrence not due to infection (P = 0.001). Body mass index >35 was an independent risk factor across both groups for 90-day complications (P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Reinforced versus nonreinforced biologics have similar risk profile and recurrence rate when placed primary fascial repair achieved. In abdominal walls with history of infection, or abdominal wall reconstruction performed concomitantly at the time of stoma takedown or bowel resection/anastomosis, nonreinforced biologics were used more commonly with no difference in negative outcomes. This implies that they may have a role for use in contaminated surgical cases. Reinforced biologics were more commonly used as a mesh choice in the setting of previous hernia repair with recurrence with no difference in outcomes. This implies that the reinforced nature may be useful in situations where extra reinforcement of already traumatized abdominal wall tissue is needed. Retrorectus or intraperitoneal placement of any biologic mesh is acceptable and should be chosen based off surgeon comfort and anticipated cost saving of individual mesh brands. There may be a role for reinforced mesh in the setting of previous failed hernia repair with weakened fascia, as well as nonreinforced in contaminated cases.

Comparing Graduating Plastic Surgery Residents' Case Logs With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Requirements, Content at National Meetings, and In-Service Examination Test Items.

BACKGROUND: The importance of adaptable and up-to-date plastic surgery graduate medical education (GME) has taken on new meaning amidst accelerating surgical innovation and increasing calls for competency-based training standards. We aimed to examine the extent to which the procedures plastic surgery residents perform, as represented in case log data, align with 2 core standardized components of plastic surgery GME: ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) minimum procedure count requirements and the PSITE (Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Examination). We also examined their alignment with procedural representation at 2 major plastic surgery meetings. METHODS: Nine categories of reconstructive and aesthetic procedures were identified. Three-year averages for the number of procedures completed in each category by residents graduating in 2019-2021 were calculated from ACGME national case log data reports. The ACGME procedure count minimum requirements were also ascertained. The titles and durations of medical programming sessions scheduled for Plastic Surgery The Meeting (PSTM) 2022 and the Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC) Annual Meeting 2022 were retrieved from online data. Finally, test items from the 2020 to 2022 administrations of the PSITE were retrieved. Conference sessions and test items were assigned to a single procedure category when possible. Percent differences were calculated for comparison. RESULTS: The distribution of procedures on plastic surgery resident case logs differs from those of the major mechanisms of standardization in plastic surgery GME, in-service examination content more so than ACGME requirements. Meeting content at PSTM and PSRC had the largest percent differences with case log data, with PSTM being skewed toward aesthetics and PSRC toward reconstructive head and neck surgery. DISCUSSION: The criteria and standards by which plastic surgery residents are evaluated and content at national meetings differ from the procedures they actually complete during their training. Although largely reflecting heterogeneity of the specialty, following these comparisons will likely prove useful in the continual evaluation of plastic surgery residency training, especially in the preparation of residents for the variety of training and practice settings they pursue.

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Burn Care Access: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

While racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in burn care have been identified in the literature, there is a paucity of research into specific underlying causes of these disparities. Here, we sought to characterize whether time to initial burn consult might contribute to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences in burn care outcomes. We performed a retrospective review of all patients evaluated by the burn surgery service at a single regional ABA-verified burn center between June 2020 and April 2022. Patients without data for the time of onset of burn injury were excluded. Time to burn consult was defined as the time from onset of burn injury to the time of first burn consult. Three hundred and sixty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. Average age was 33.3 years, and 65.8% of patients were male. Average time to burn consult for all patients was 17 hours and 07 minutes. There were no significant differences in this variable among our cohort when stratified by race, ethnicity, or insurance status. Rates of surgical management (Chi-squared P = 0.05) and length of stay (ANOVA P < 0.0001) significantly differed by insurance status, but not among racial or ethnic groups. Medicare patients had the highest rates of surgical intervention and longer hospital stays; patients without insurance had the lowest rates of surgical intervention and shorter hospital stays. These results indicate that time from burn onset to burn consult is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in burn care. Further studies are needed to better understand other aspects of burn care that may contribute to the noted disparities.

Utilisation of critical care services for surgical patients in a model three hospital.

BACKGROUND: The demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds in the surgical population has increased in recent years. This is due to increased complexity of operative interventions, development of critical care services and improved availability of technologies. The number of beds in ICUs nationwide remains limited. In model three hospitals, this is further impacted by a lack of high dependency unit (HDU) facilities and difficulty with transfer of patients to tertiary centres. AIM: To assess utilisation of ICU resources amongst general surgical patients admitted for elective and emergency procedures to Mayo University Hospital. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted between 31/10/2016 and 01/11/2017 on general surgical patients admitted to the intensive care unit. The ICU register and ICU database were used to collect data regarding patient demographics, admission by specialty, ICU length of stay, interventions performed, level of care, infection status and antimicrobial usage. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-three patients were admitted to the ICU. One hundred thirty-four (15.35%) were surgical admissions, of which 55 were elective and 79 were emergency. The most common cause for emergency admission to ICU was emergency laparotomy. Mean ICU length of stay (LOS) for surgical patients was 3.6 days. Three (2.2%) surgical patients were transferred to model four hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the need to protect sufficient numbers of ICU beds for delivery of emergency surgical care. It highlights the potential utility of an HDU in this setting. The introduction of such a facility would impact cost savings and increase access for those requiring definitive ICU level care.