Surgeon variability in repair of hiatal hernia at the time of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) is estimated to affect between 20 and 50% of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. However, there is no consensus regarding the preoperative assessment and intraoperative repair of HH. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variation in surgeon assessment and repair of HH during bariatric surgery across a multi-hospital healthcare system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using data obtained from the metabolic and bariatric accreditation quality improvement program (MBSAQIP) and institutional medical records. All adult patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were included. Preoperative assessment of HH was defined as either EGD or upper GI/Esophagram (UGI) within one year of surgery. Surgeons were evaluated individually and by hospital. Chi-square analysis and ANOVA were performed. RESULTS: From January 2018 to February 2023, 3,487 bariatric surgeries were performed across 4 hospitals and 11 surgeons (2481 SG and 1006 RYGB). HH were concurrently repaired during 24% of operations. The rate of HH repair in SG was 25 and 22% in RYGB (p = 0.06). Preoperatively, 41% of patients underwent EGD and 23% had an UGI. HH was diagnosed in 22% of EGDs. Patients who underwent preoperative EGD had higher rates of HH repair than those without a preop EGD (33% vs. 17%; p < 0.001). The rate of preoperative EGD utilization by surgeon varied significantly from 3 to 92% (p < 0.001) as did HH repair rates between surgeons (range 8-57%; p < 0.001). Even among patients with a preoperatively diagnosed HH, the repair rate ranged 20-91% between individual surgeons (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within a healthcare system there was significant heterogeneity in approach to assessment and repair of HH during bariatric surgery. This appears to be mediated by multiple factors, including utilization of preoperative studies, individual surgeon differences, and differences between hospitals.

Increased bleeding risk with enoxaparin venothromboembolism prophylaxis compared with heparin in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative venothromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis is an established tenant of bariatric surgery; however, there is little comparative data to guide medication choice. The objective of this study was to determine if a change in VTE prophylaxis from heparin to enoxaparin was associated with differing rates of postoperative bleeding and VTE occurrence after bariatric surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients 18 years or older who underwent primary bariatric surgery (sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)) at a single institution between March 2012 and December 2021. Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin was utilized for VTE prophylaxis from March 2012 through February 2018 and then enoxaparin was used from March 2018 through December 2021. Postoperative bleeding was defined as requiring a blood transfusion or reoperation for bleeding within 30 days of surgery. Chi-square test was used to test for differences between groups. RESULTS: There were 2159 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 1324 (61.3%) patients in the heparin group and 835 (38.7%) in the enoxaparin group. Overall, 1,503 (69.6%) patients underwent SG and 656 (30.4%) RYGB. There was no difference in the ratio of SG to RYGB between the heparin and enoxaparin groups. Most patients were female (n = 1709, 79.2%) with a median age of 43.2 years (interquartile range (IQR): 35.6-52.2), and median BMI of 44.9 (IQR: 40.9-50.5). Overall postoperative bleeding occurred more frequently in the enoxaparin group (n = 26, 3.1%) compared with the heparin group (n = 12, 0.9%) (p < 0.01). Additionally, reoperation for bleeding was more frequent with enoxaparin (enoxaparin 0.8% vs. heparin 0.2%, p = 0.04). There was no difference in VTE occurrence between the two groups (heparin: n = 14, 1.1%, enoxaparin: n = 7, 0.8% (p = 0.61)). CONCLUSIONS: An institutional change from heparin to enoxaparin for bariatric surgery perioperative VTE prophylaxis was associated with a significant increase in postoperative bleeding, with no difference in VTE complications.

Association between improved adenoma detection rates and interval colorectal cancer rates after a quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, interval CRCs (iCRCs) still occur. We aimed to determine iCRC incidence, assess the relationship between adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and iCRC rates, and evaluate iCRC rates over time concomitant with initiation of an institutional colonoscopy quality improvement (QI) program. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy at an academic medical center (January 2003 to December 2015). We identified iCRCs through our data warehouse and reviewed charts to confirm appropriateness for study inclusion. iCRC was defined as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 60 months and early iCRC as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 36 months after index colonoscopy. We measured the relationship between provider ADRs and iCRC rates and assessed iCRC rates over time with initiation of a QI program that started in 2010. RESULTS: A total of 193,939 colonoscopies were performed over the study period. We identified 186 patients with iCRC. The overall iCRC rate was .12% and the early iCRC rate .06%. Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the highest ADR quartile (34%-52%) had a 4-fold lower iCRC risk (relative risk, .23; 95% confidence interval, .11-.48) than those undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the lowest quartile (12%-21%). After QI program initiation, overall iCRC rates improved from .15% to .08% (P < .001) and early iCRC rates improved from .07% to .04% (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that iCRC rate is inversely correlated with provider ADR. ADRs increased and iCRC rates decreased over time, concomitant with a QI program focused on split-dose bowel preparation, quality metric measurement, provider education, and feedback. iCRC rate measurement should be considered a feasible, outcomes-driven institutional metric of colonoscopy quality.