The ACS-NSQIP Analysis of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Following Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Diagnoses.

Introduction Surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to be a challenging issue among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Anecdotally, the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) following pancreatectomy for cancer has been associated with decreased SSIs. The objective of this study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of NPWT and non-NPWT for incisional wound care following distal pancreatectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic diagnoses using a national surgical database. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) was queried from 2005 to 2019 for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic diagnoses using primary Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The primary outcome was surgical site infection rates between NPWT and non-NPWT patient groups. Secondary outcomes include sepsis, septic shock, readmission, and reoperation. Outcomes of interest were compared using multivariate logistic regression. Results A total of 54,457 patients underwent pancreatectomy with 131 receiving NPWT. Multivariate analysis, while accounting for patient characteristics, including wound classification, showed no difference in postoperative superficial SSI, deep SSI, sepsis, septic shock, or readmission between the NPWT and non-NPWT groups. Organ space SSI was higher in the NPWT group (21% vs 12%, p=0.001). Reoperation related to procedure was also high in the NPWT group (14% vs 4.3%, p<0.001). Conclusion The use of NPWT in distal pancreatectomies and pancreatoduodenectomies is associated with increased organ space SSIs and reoperation rates, with no difference in superficial SSI, deep SSI, or readmission. This large sample study shows no significant benefit of using NPWT incisional wound care after pancreatectomy.

Outcomes of Concurrent Ventral Hernia Repair and Cholecystectomy Compared to Ventral Hernia Repair Alone.

Introduction It has been suggested that hernia repair with concomitant cholecystectomy increases the risk of postoperative complications due to potential mesh contamination. This study compares postoperative outcomes and complications between patients who underwent ventral hernia repair (VHR) with and without concomitant cholecystectomy (CCY). Methods Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, from 2005 to 2019, we queried patients who underwent ventral hernia repairs using the current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 49652-49657 (laparoscopic) and 49560-49566 (open), with or without cholecystectomy. The ACS NSQIP is a prospective, systematic study of patients who underwent major general surgical procedures aggregating data from over 200 hospitals. Cases involving additional concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality, length of stay, readmission, return to operating room (OR), and postoperative complications. The odds ratio for primary outcomes was calculated using multivariable binomial logistic regression to control for patient risk factors. Results In total, 167586 cases were identified, 165,758 ventral hernia repairs alone, and 1,828 ventral hernia repairs with concomitant cholecystectomy. There was no difference in 30-day mortality, length of stay, readmission, return to the operating room, or postoperative complications between groups. Patients who underwent simultaneous VHR/CCY when compared to those who had VHR alone, had no differences in the rate of surgical site infections (1.86% vs. 1.97%, P = 0.57) or sepsis (0.82% vs. 0.41%, P = 0.10).  Conclusion In a large national sample, there is no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, specifically infection-related complications, when comparing VHR along with concurrent VHR/CCY. Our findings suggest no increased risks for patients undergoing concurrent ventral hernia repair and cholecystectomy. Hence, surgeons might consider this combined approach to offer the best value-based care, especially when it could eliminate the need for a second operation and the risk of infection is low. Prospective studies with more procedural-specific information for hernia repairs and indications for cholecystectomy are needed however it is likely safe to perform both procedures during the same setting in cholecystectomy cases lacking signs of acute infection.

A Retrospective Review of 30-Day Hospital Readmission Risk After Open Heart Surgery in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Introduction Readmission rates after open heart surgery (OHS) remain an important clinical issue. The causes are varied, with identifying risk factors potentially providing valuable information to reduce healthcare costs and the rate of post-operative complications. This study aimed to characterize the reasons for 30-day hospital readmission rates of patients after open heart surgery. Methods All patients over 18 years of age undergoing OHS at a community hospital from January 2020 through December 2020 were identified. Demographic data, medical history, operative reports, post-operative complications, and telehealth interventions were obtained through chart review. Descriptive statistics and readmission rates were calculated, along with a logistic regression model, to understand the effects of medical history on readmission. Results A total of 357 OHS patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. Within the population, 8.68% of patients experienced readmission, 10.08% had an emergency department (ED) visit, and 95.80% had an outpatient office visit. A history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) significantly predicted 30-day hospital readmissions but not ED or outpatient office visits. Telehealth education was delivered to 66.11% of patients. Conclusion The study investigated factors associated with 30-day readmission following OHS. AFib patients were more likely to be readmitted than patients without atrial fibrillation. No other predictors of readmission, ED visits, or outpatient office visits were found. Patients reporting symptoms of tachycardia, pain, dyspnea, or "other" could be at increased risk for readmission.

Evaluation of Renal Function Recovery After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has become a new surgical gold standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). It is known that untreated BPH can lead to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). A positive correlation exists between BOO and chronic kidney disease (CKD), but stability or recovery of renal function after HoLEP remains unknown. We sought to describe changes in renal function after HoLEP in men with CKD. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent HoLEP with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) <60, CKD stages III to V. Pre- and postoperative GFRs were selected within 3 months before the operation and within 1 year postoperatively. The presence of an indwelling catheter, preoperative hydronephrosis, history of kidney stones, and prostate size were also reviewed. Data were analyzed in accordance with preoperative CKD stage. Results: Of the reviewed patients, 138 met inclusion criteria with CKD stages III to V. Each CKD group was without significant postoperative complications. There was a significant increase between pre- and postoperative GFR for patients in CKD stages III (n = 116) and IV (n = 17) (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.010, respectively). The mean increase between pre- and postoperative GFR for the CKD stages III and IV patients were 6.4 and 6.49, respectively. There was no correlation between presence of preoperative hydronephrosis, history of kidney stones, catheter dependency, nor prostate size on change in postoperative GFR (p > 0.05). Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients in CKD stages III or IV undergoing HoLEP experience an increase in GFR. It is noteworthy that there appears to be no decline in renal function postoperatively in any group. HoLEP represents an excellent surgical option for patients with preoperative CKD and may prevent further renal decline.

Association of Radial Head Fracture Treatment With Long-Term Function.

BACKGROUND: Radial head fractures are often associated with poor outcomes. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) might be considered in operative cases. This study aimed to compare long-term patient-reported functional outcomes among patients with operatively treated radial head fractures. METHODS: A cross sectional study conducted at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients with a radial head fracture who underwent ORIF or RHA between 2006 and 2018, and agreed to complete a survey in 2020. The primary outcome measure was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients participated in the study. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between groups. QuickDASH scores were similar for both groups (ORIF: mean = 15.7, SD = 18.4; RHA: mean = 22.8, SD = 18.6; mean difference = 0.2 [-9.0 to 9.3], P = .97). Nineteen (37%) ORIF patients and 12 (48%) RHA patients reported a need for pain medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.8 [0.3-2.4], P = .70). Thirteen (25%) ORIF patients and 6 (24%) RHA patients required additional surgery (adjusted OR = 1.7 [0.5-6.2], P = .39). A subgroup analysis of multi-fragmentary fractures revealed similar findings. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes, which included a subgroup analysis of multi-fragmentary fractures, were similar between ORIF and RHA groups at an average of 7.5 years from surgery. Reconstructing the radial head might not result in worse outcomes than RHA when both options are employed according to the best judgment of the operating surgeon.

The Effect of Surgeon Experience on Short- to Medium-Term Complication Rate Following Operative Fixation of Acetabular Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Operative management of acetabular fractures is technically challenging, but there is little data regarding how surgeon experience affects outcomes. Previous efforts have focused only on reduction quality in a single surgeon series. We hypothesized that increasing surgeon experience would be associated with improved acetabular surgical outcomes in general. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Urban academic level-I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred ninety-five patients who underwent an open reduction internal fixation for an acetabular fracture. RESULTS: There was a significant association between surgeon experience and certain outcomes, specifically reoperation rate (16.9% overall), readmission rate (13.9% overall), and reduction quality. Deep infection rate (9.7% overall) and secondary displacement rate (3.7% overall) were not found to have a significant association with surgeon experience. For reoperation rate, the time until 50% peak performance was 2.4 years in practice. CONCLUSION: Surgeon experience had a significant association with reoperation rate, quality of reduction, and readmission rate after open reduction internal fixation of acetabular fractures. Other patient outcomes were not found to be associated with surgeon experience. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Fixed angle device comparison in young femoral neck fractures: Dynamic hip screw vs dynamic helical hip system.

INTRODUCTION: Femoral neck fractures in the young patient present a unique challenge. Most surgeons managing these injuries prefer a fixed angle implant, however these devices are fraught with problems. A dynamic hip screw (DHS) is one such fixed angle device that risks malreduction through rotational torque during screw insertion. To avoid this risk some surgeons utilize a dynamic helical hip system (DHHS), however little is known about the complication profile of this device. We hypothesized that the complication rate between these two devices would be similar. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to a single tertiary referral center with a femoral neck fracture were identified from a prospectively collected trauma database over an 11-year period. Patients were included if they were less than 60 years of age, treated with a DHS or DHHS, and had at least 6 months of follow-up. Demographic data, injury characteristics, and post-operative complications were obtained through chart review. Standard statistical comparisons were made between groups. A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Average age of patients was 38 years (range: 18-59) and 56 (73%) were male. The DHS was used in 37 (48%) patients and the DHHS was used in 40 (52%) patients. Demographic data including average age, gender, body mass index, and smoking status did not differ between the groups. There were 29 (39%) total complications of interest (femoral neck shortening >5 mm, non-union requiring osteotomy, conversion to THA, and osteonecrosis. There were 19 (51%) complications in the DHS group and 10 (25%) in the DHHS group (p = 0.01, risk difference 25%, 95% CI 7-43). Comparisons of the individual complications about the DHS and DHHS cohort did not reach statistical significance for non-union (8% vs 3%) or THA (16% vs 13%) (p = 0.33, p = 0.64, respectively) but a difference was detected in the rate of shortening (27% vs 10%; p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a high risk of complication when managing young femoral neck fractures in line with prior literature. The major complication rate of non-union requiring osteotomy or fixation failure resulting in THA was no different between the two groups, but the rate of shortening was greater the DHS group. This data suggests the DHHS may be a suitable device to manage the young femoral neck fracture and without increased risk of complication.

Patients value their own pain over braking safety when deciding when to return to driving: a discrete choice experiment on lower extremity injuries.

Objective: To quantify patient preferences towards time to return to driving relative to compromised reaction time and potential complication risks. Design: Cross-sectional discrete choice experiment. Setting: Academic trauma center. Patients: Ninety-six adult patients with an operative lower extremity fracture from December 2019 through December 2020. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measurement: Patient completed a discrete choice experiment survey consisting of 12 hypothetical return to driving scenarios with varied attributes: time to return to driving (range: 1 to 6 months), risk of implant failure (range: 1% to 12%), pain upon driving return (range: none to severe), and driving safety measured by braking distance (range: 0 to 40 feet at 60 mph). The relative importance of each attribute is reported on a scale of 0% to 100%. Results: Patients most valued a reduced pain level when resuming driving (62%), followed by the risk of implant failure (17%), time to return to driving (13%), and braking safety (8%). Patients were indifferent to returning to driving at 1 month (median utility: 28, interquartile range [IQR] -31 to 80) or 2 months (median utility: 59, IQR: 41 to 91) postinjury. Conclusion: Patients with lower extremity injuries demonstrated a willingness to forego earlier return to driving if it might mean a decrease in their pain level. Patients are least concerned about their driving safety, instead placing higher value on their own pain level and chance of implant failure. The findings of this study are the first to rigorously quantify patient preferences toward a return to driving and heterogeneity in patient preferences. Level of Evidence: V.