Association of social vulnerability with receipt of hernia repair in Texas.

BACKGROUND: The effect of social health determinants on hernia surgery receipt is unclear. We aimed to assess the association of the social vulnerability index with the likelihood of undergoing elective and emergency hernia repair in Texas. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of the Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File and Texas Outpatient Surgical and Radiological Procedure Public Use Data File from 2016 to 2019. Patients ≥18 years old with inguinal or umbilical hernia were included. Social vulnerability index and urban/rural status were merged with the database at the county level. Patients were stratified based on social vulnerability index quartiles, with the lowest quartile (Q1) designated as low vulnerability, Q2 and Q3 as average, and Q4 as high vulnerability. Wilcoxon rank sum, t test, and χ2 analysis were used, as appropriate. The relative risk of undergoing surgery was calculated with subgroup sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Of 234,843 patients assessed, 148,139 (63.1%) underwent surgery. Compared to patients with an average social vulnerability index, the low social vulnerability index group was 36% more likely to receive surgery (relative risk: 1.36, 95% CI 1.34-1.37), whereas the high social vulnerability index group was 14% less likely to receive surgery (relative risk: 0.86, 95% CI 0.85-0.86). This remained significant after stratifying for age, sex, insurance status, ethnicity, and urban/rural status (P < .05). For emergency admissions, there was no difference in receipt of surgery by social vulnerability index. CONCLUSION: Vulnerable patients are less likely to undergo elective surgical hernia repair, even after adjusting for demographics, insurance, and urbanicity. The social vulnerability index may be a useful indicator of social determinants of health barriers to hernia repair.

Global patterns of necrotizing soft tissue infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frequency, microbiology, and outcomes of necrotizing soft tissue infections vary based on locoregional and environmental factors; however, there has been no global survey of these patterns. We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis on published reports of necrotizing soft tissue infections from across the globe. METHODS: Peer-reviewed empirical studies examining rates of polymicrobial and monomicrobial necrotizing soft tissue infections with microbial isolation and overall mortality rate were extracted along with geographic location using PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed, adjusting for publication bias. Meta-regression analyses examined moderator effects of risk factors. RESULTS: One hundred and five studies (8,718 total patients) were included. Pooled prevalence of polymicrobial and monomicrobial infections were 53% and 37.9%, respectively. Truncal necrotizing soft tissue infections were commonly polymicrobial (P < .001), whereas monomicrobial infections prevailed in extremities (P = .008). Global prevalence of monomicrobial necrotizing soft tissue infections was observed to increase by 1.1% annually (P = .003). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism globally and in North America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, followed by Streptococcus pyogenes and Escherichia coli. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus accounted for 16% of necrotizing soft tissue infections globally. Overall mortality was 23.1%, observed to decline globally over the last decade (P = .020). No regional differences were noted for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although polymicrobial infections remain predominant worldwide, the incidence of monomicrobial infections is increasing. The observed decline in necrotizing soft tissue infection-related mortality is encouraging and may reflect advances in management, despite major variations in available healthcare resources globally.