Propensity score matched analysis of laparoscopic revisional and conversional sleeve gastrectomy with concurrent hiatal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with concurrent hiatal hernia repair (CHHR) when performing a conversional or revisional vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). CHHR is often necessary during VSG due to potential gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) development or obstructive symptoms. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement (MBSAQIP) participant use file was assessed for the years 2015-2020 for revisional/conversional VSG procedures. The presence of CHHR was used to create two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with E-analysis. RESULTS: There were 33,909 patients available, with 5986 undergoing the VSG procedure with CHHR. In the unmatched analysis, there was an increased frequency of patients being female (85.72 vs 83.30%; p < 0.001), having a history of GERD (38.01 vs 31.25%; p < 0.001), and being of older age (49.59 ± 10.97 vs 48.70 ± 10.83; p < 0.001). Patients undergoing VSG with CHHR experienced decreased sleep apnea (25.00 vs 28.84%; p < 0.001) and diabetes (14.27 vs 17.80%; p < 0.001). PSM yielded 5986 patient pairs. Matched patients with CHHR experienced increased operative time (115 min ± 53 vs 103 min ± 51; p < 0.001), increased risk of postoperative pneumonia (0.45 vs 0.15%; p = 0.005) and readmission (4.69 vs 3.58%; p = 0.002) within thirty days. However, patients undergoing CHHR with revisional or conversional VSG did not experience increased risk of death, postoperative bleeding, postoperative leak, or reoperations. CONCLUSION: Despite a small association with increased postoperative pneumonia, the rate of complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic revisional/conversional VSG and CHHR are low. CHHR is a safe option when combined with the laparoscopic revisional/conversional VSG procedure in the early postoperative period.

Concurrent paraesophageal hernia repair in revisional/conversional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring concurrent paraesophageal hernia repair (CPHR) have been shown to have favorable outcomes in primary bariatric surgery. However, patients requiring revisional or conversional surgery represent a group of patients with higher perioperative risk. Currently, few reports on concurrent paraesophageal hernia repair utilizing the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database are available. The primary aim of this study was to determine perioperative complications associated with CPHR and the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional/conversional operation. METHODS: In this study, patients undergoing revisional/conversional RYGB between 2015 and 2020 were accessed via the MBSAQIP database. Patients were categorized based on the presence of a paraesophageal hernia as a concurrent procedure. Patients who underwent revisional/conversional surgery without additional procedures were utilized for controls. A propensity score-matched cohort was generated and E-analysis utilized to assess unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: After exclusions, 35,698 patients were available. Patients receiving CPHR were more likely to be female (90.79% vs 87.37%; p < 0.001) and have increased frequency of gastroesophageal reflux disease (69.20% vs 51.69%; p < 0.001). However, these patients had lower frequencies of sleep apnea (24.12% vs 30.13%; p < 0.001), hypertension requiring medication (38.51% vs 42.59%; p < 0.001), and decreased frequency of hyperlipidemia (19.44% vs 21.60%;p < 0.001). After matching, 6,231 patient pairs were developed and showed that patients undergoing CPHR were at increased risk of readmission (9.44% vs 7.58%; p < 0.001), intervention (3.56% vs 2.79%; p = 0.018), increased requirement for outpatient dehydration treatment (5.87% vs 4.67%;p = 0.004), and overall increased operation time (169.3 min ± 76.0 vs 153.5 ± 73.3; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant increases in the rates of reoperation, death, postoperative leak complications, or bleeding complications after CPHR. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing revisional/conversional RYGB with CPHR may be at higher risk for a small number of rare postoperative complications. CPHR is a safe procedure in patients undergoing revisional/conversional RYGB in the short-term postoperative period.

Neither Skin Sutures nor Foam Dressing Use Affect Tracheostomy Complication Rates.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is commonly used for managing the airway of trauma patients. Complications are common and result in increased length of stays and treatment cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the utilization of skin sutures or foam barrier dressings affect tracheostomy complication rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent a tracheostomy by the trauma service between January 2014 and December 2017. Collected variables included demographics, patient history, treatment variables, complications, and outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were constructed to identify significant predictors for the development of complications. RESULTS: A total of 268 patients were included. The median age was 43.5 y, 221 (82.5%) patients were men, and the median BMI was 28 (IQR 24.6, 32.2). Most (87.3%) of the procedures were performed in the operating room and 82.5% were open. Skin sutures were used in 46.3% and 53.4% had a foam barrier dressing placed. Current smoking [OR 8.1 (95% CI 1.5, 43.6)] and BMI [OR 1.1 (95% CI 1.03, 1.2)] significantly increased the risk of developing pressure necrosis. Use of sutures or foam dressings was not associated with pressure necrosis, bleeding, or surgical site infection. There were no unexpected tracheostomy decannulations regardless of the use of skin sutures. CONCLUSIONS: Suturing the tracheostomy or applying a foam barrier dressing was not associated with overall complications or decannulation rates. Based on our data, we suggest that skin sutures may be safely abandoned.

Antibiotic Duration and Outcome Complications for Surgical Site Infection Prevention in Traumatic Mandible Fracture.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in traumatic mandibular fracture repair is unknown, and practices vary significantly. The objective of this study was to characterize antibiotic duration and outcomes after surgical repair of traumatic mandibular fracture. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent surgical fixation of a mandible fracture between January 2014 and December 2016 was performed. Operative service was categorized between otolaryngology (ear, nose, and throat surgery), plastic and reconstructive surgery, and oral and maxillofacial services. Primary outcomes were SSI and operative complications (including osteomyelitis, nonunion, malocclusion, and hardware infections). Differences in antibiotic prescription pattern were analyzed using analysis of variance test and Pearson chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in the study with 33 (44.0%), 26 (34.7%), and 16 (21.3%) managed by plastic and reconstructive surgery, ear, nose, and throat surgery, and oral and maxillofacial services, respectively. Median age was 30.0 y. Median injury severity score was 4.0. There was no significant difference in hospital length of stay (P = 0.44), intensive care unit length of stay (P = 0.53), or postoperative complications (P = 0.15). None of our patients developed an SSI or postantibiotics complications. Although the total inpatient duration of antibiotics was not significantly different among services (P = 0.37), there were significant differences in outpatient duration of antibiotics (P = 0.007) and total duration of antibiotics (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Duration of antibiotics is not associated with postoperative SSI or antibiotics-related complications. The wide variation in prescribing practices and lack of any clear benefit for prolonged antibiotics provides an opportunity to explore the benefits of a standardized short course of antibiotics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, III.