Bariatric Surgeon Ergonomics: A Comparison of Laparoscopy and Robotics.

INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is routinely performed using laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Musculoskeletal injuries are prevalent among both robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgeons. Studies evaluating ergonomic differences between laparoscopic and robotic bariatric surgery are limited. This study aims to analyze the ergonomic, physical, and mental workload differences among surgeons performing robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All primary laparoscopic and robotic bariatric surgeries, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and sleeve gastrectomy between May and August 2022 were included in this study. Objective ergonomic analysis was performed by an observer evaluating each surgeon intraoperatively according to the validated Rapid Entire Body Assessment tool, with a higher score indicating more ergonomic strain. After each operation, surgeons subjectively evaluated their physical workload using the body part discomfort scale, and their mental workload using the surgery task load index. RESULTS: Five bariatric surgeons participated in this study. In total, 50 operative cases were observed, 37 laparoscopic and 13 robotic. The median total Rapid Entire Body Assessmentscore as a primary surgeon was significantly higher in laparoscopic (6.0) compared to robotic (3.0) cases (P < 0.01). The laparoscopic and robotic approaches had no significant differences in the surgeons' physical (body part discomfort scale) or mental workload (surgery task load index). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified low-risk ergonomic stress in surgeons performing bariatric surgery robotically compared to medium-risk stress laparoscopically. Since ergonomic stress can exist even without the perception of physical or mental stress, this highlights the importance of external observations to optimize ergonomics for surgeons in the operating room.

The impact of post-operative enteral nutrition on duodenal injury outcomes: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Leak following surgical repair of traumatic duodenal injuries results in prolonged hospitalization and oftentimes nil per os(NPO) treatment. Parenteral nutrition(PN) has known morbidity; however, duodenal leak(DL) patients often have complex injuries and hospital courses resulting in barriers to enteral nutrition(EN). We hypothesized EN alone would be associated with 1)shorter duration until leak closure and 2)less infectious complications and shorter hospital length of stay(HLOS) compared to PN. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a retrospective, multicenter study from 35 Level-1 trauma centers, including patients >14 years-old who underwent surgery for duodenal injuries(1/2010-12/2020) and endured post-operative DL. The study compared nutrition strategies: EN vs PN vs EN + PN using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests; if significance was found pairwise comparison or Dunn's test were performed. RESULTS: There were 113 patients with DL: 43 EN, 22 PN, and 48 EN + PN. Patients were young(median age 28 years-old) males(83.2%) with penetrating injuries(81.4%). There was no difference in injury severity or critical illness among the groups, however there were more pancreatic injuries among PN groups. EN patients had less days NPO compared to both PN groups(12 days[IQR23] vs 40[54] vs 33[32],p = <0.001). Time until leak closure was less in EN patients when comparing the three groups(7 days[IQR14.5] vs 15[20.5] vs 25.5[55.8],p = 0.008). EN patients had less intra-abdominal abscesses, bacteremia, and days with drains than the PN groups(all p < 0.05). HLOS was shorter among EN patients vs both PN groups(27 days[24] vs 44[62] vs 45[31],p = 0.001). When controlling for predictors of leak, regression analysis demonstrated EN was associated with shorter HLOS(ß -24.9, 95%CI -39.0 to -10.7,p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EN was associated with a shorter duration until leak closure, less infectious complications, and shorter length of stay. Contrary to some conventional thought, PN was not associated with decreased time until leak closure. We therefore suggest EN should be the preferred choice of nutrition in patients with duodenal leaks whenever feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.