Comparison of Medical Research Abstracts Written by Surgical Trainees and Senior Surgeons or Generated by Large Language Models.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated academia, especially OpenAI Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT), a large language model. However, little has been reported on its use in medical research. Objective: To assess a chatbot's capability to generate and grade medical research abstracts. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 (referred to as chatbot 1 and chatbot 2) were coached to generate 10 abstracts by providing background literature, prompts, analyzed data for each topic, and 10 previously presented, unassociated abstracts to serve as models. The study was conducted between August 2023 and February 2024 (including data analysis). Exposure: Abstract versions utilizing the same topic and data were written by a surgical trainee or a senior physician or generated by chatbot 1 and chatbot 2 for comparison. The 10 training abstracts were written by 8 surgical residents or fellows, edited by the same senior surgeon, at a high-volume hospital in the Southeastern US with an emphasis on outcomes-based research. Abstract comparison was then based on 10 abstracts written by 5 surgical trainees within the first 6 months of their research year, edited by the same senior author. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measurements were the abstract grades using 10- and 20-point scales and ranks (first to fourth). Abstract versions by chatbot 1, chatbot 2, junior residents, and the senior author were compared and judged by blinded surgeon-reviewers as well as both chatbot models. Five academic attending surgeons from Denmark, the UK, and the US, with extensive experience in surgical organizations, research, and abstract evaluation served as reviewers. Results: Surgeon-reviewers were unable to differentiate between abstract versions. Each reviewer ranked an AI-generated version first at least once. Abstracts demonstrated no difference in their median (IQR) 10-point scores (resident, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; senior author, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 1, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 2, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; P = .61), 20-point scores (resident, 14.0 [12.0-7.0]; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0]; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0]; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0]; P = .50), or rank (resident, 3.0 [1.0-4.0]; senior author, 2.0 [1.0-4.0]; chatbot 1, 3.0 [2.0-4.0]; chatbot 2, 2.0 [1.0-3.0]; P = .14). The abstract grades given by chatbot 1 were comparable to the surgeon-reviewers' grades. However, chatbot 2 graded more favorably than the surgeon-reviewers and chatbot 1. Median (IQR) chatbot 2-reviewer grades were higher than surgeon-reviewer grades of all 4 abstract versions (resident, 14.0 [12.0-17.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .02; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .03; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .002; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .04). When comparing the grades of the 2 chatbots, chatbot 2 gave higher median (IQR) grades for abstracts than chatbot 1 (resident, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .003; senior author, 13.5 [13.0-15.5] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .004; chatbot 1, 14.5 [13.0-15.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .003; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, trained chatbots generated convincing medical abstracts, undifferentiable from resident or senior author drafts. Chatbot 1 graded abstracts similarly to surgeon-reviewers, while chatbot 2 was less stringent. These findings may assist surgeon-scientists in successfully implementing AI in medical research.

The carolinas crossover, a preperitoneal crossover for enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) ventral hernia repair (VHR): a novel technique.

PURPOSE: To present a novel technique of preperitoneal cross-over for eTEP VHR. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic eTEP with mesh utilizing a preperitoneal cross over technique were identified using a single-institution hernia database. This novel technique involves minimally invasive access to the retro-rectus space on one side with midline cross over into the preperitoneal space on the contralateral side. Baseline demographics of the patients were obtained, and intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were reported. RESULTS: Nine VHR patients underwent robotic eTEP with mesh using a preperitoneal crossover technique. Five patients were male, mean age was 53 ± 18.4 years, and mean BMI was 32.5 ± 4.2 kg/m2. Two patients were diabetic and 2 were previous smokers. Two of the hernias were recurrent. The average hernia defect was 96.9 ± 45.5 cm2 and the average mesh size was 593.3 ± 168.2 cm2. Four patients underwent a unilateral TAR, while five patients did not require any component separation. All cases were CDC Class 1 wounds. All patients met discharge criteria on post-operative day 1. There was one post-operative wound occurrence which was a seroma. There were no infectious complications and no hernia recurrences. The average follow up was 1.4 ± 1.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Preperitoneal cross-over during eTEP ventral hernia technique is a safe technique that allows placement of a large extra-peritoneal mesh. Early patient outcomes are favorable. Larger sample size and follow-up are needed to truly assess postoperative outcomes.

Bone Anchor Fixation in the Repair of Blunt Traumatic Abdominal Wall Hernias: A Western Trauma Association Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWHs) are rare but require a variety of operative techniques to repair including bone anchor fixation (BAF) when tissue tears off bony structures. This study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis of BAF technique for blunt TAWH repair. Bone anchor fixation and no BAF repairs were compared, hypothesizing increased hernia recurrence with BAF repair. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the WTA blunt TAWH multicenter study was performed including all patients who underwent repair of their TAWH. Patients with BAF were compared to those with no BAF with bivariate analyses. RESULTS: 176 patients underwent repair of their TAWH with 41 (23.3%) undergoing BAF. 26 (63.4%) patients had tissue fixed to bone, with 7 of those reinforced with mesh. The remaining 15 (36.6%) patients had bridging mesh anchored to bone. The BAF group had a similar age, sex, body mass index, and injury severity score compared to the no BAF group. The time to repair (1 vs 1 days, P = .158), rate of hernia recurrence (9.8% vs 12.7%, P = .786), and surgical site infection (SSI) (12.5% vs 15.6%, P = .823) were all similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This largest series to date found nearly one-quarter of TAWH repairs required BAF. Bone anchor fixation repairs had a similar rate of hernia recurrence and SSI compared to no BAF repairs, suggesting this is a reasonable option for repair of TAWH. However, future prospective studies are needed to compare specific BAF techniques and evaluate long-term outcomes including patient-centered outcomes such as pain and quality of life.

Open repair of flank and lumbar hernias: 142 consecutive repairs at a high-volume hernia center.

BACKGROUND: Flank and lumbar hernias (FLH) are challenging to repair. This study aimed to establish a reproducible management strategy and analyze elective flank and lumbar repair (FLHR) outcomes from a single institution. METHODS: A prospective analysis using a hernia-specific database was performed examining patients undergoing open FLHR between 2004 and 2021. Variables included patient demographics and operative characteristics. RESULTS: Of 142 patients, 106 presented with flank hernias, and 36 with lumbar hernias. Patients, primarily ASA Class 2 or 3, exhibited a mean age of 57.0 â€‹± â€‹13.4 years and BMI of 30.2 â€‹± â€‹5.7 â€‹kg/m2. Repairs predominantly utilized synthetic mesh in the preperitoneal space (95.1 â€‹%). After 29.9 â€‹± â€‹13.1 months follow-up, wound infections occurred in 8.3 â€‹%; hernia recurrence was 3.5 â€‹%. At 6 months postoperatively, 21.2 â€‹% of patients reported chronic pain with two-thirds of these individuals having preoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Open preperitoneal FLHR provides a durable repair with low complication and hernia recurrence rates over 2.5 years of follow-up.

A western trauma association multicenter comparison of mesh versus non-mesh repair of blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias.

BACKGROUND: Blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWH) occur in <1 % of trauma patients. Optimal repair techniques, such as mesh reinforcement, have not been studied in detail. We hypothesize that mesh use will be associated with increased surgical site infections (SSI) and not improve hernia recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Western Trauma Association blunt TAWH multicenter study was performed. Patients who underwent TAWH repair during initial hospitalization (1/2012-12/2018) were included. Mesh repair patients were compared to primary repair patients (non-mesh). A logistic regression was conducted to assess risk factors for SSI. RESULTS: 157 patients underwent TAWH repair during index hospitalization with 51 (32.5 %) having mesh repair: 24 (45.3 %) synthetic and 29 (54.7 %) biologic. Mesh patients were more commonly smokers (43.1 % vs. 22.9 %, p = 0.016) and had a larger defect size (10 vs. 6 cm, p = 0.003). Mesh patients had a higher rate of SSI (25.5 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.016) compared to non-mesh patients, but a similar rate of recurrence (13.7 % vs. 10.5%, p = 0.742), hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Mesh use (OR 3.66) and higher ISS (OR 1.06) were significant risk factors for SSI in a multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Mesh was used more frequently in flank TAWH and those with a larger defect size. Mesh use was associated with a higher incidence and risk of SSI but did not reduce the risk of hernia recurrence. When repairing TAWH mesh should be employed judiciously, and prospective randomized studies are needed to identify clear indications for mesh use in TAWH.

Fragility of Randomized Clinical Trials Using Mesh in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

This systematic review evaluates the fragility of randomized clinical trials that used mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction.

Defining surgical risk in octogenarians undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: With an aging population, the utility of surgery in elderly patients, particularly octogenarians, is of increasing interest. The goal of this study was to analyze outcomes of octogenarians versus non-octogenarians undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR). METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried for patients > 18 years old who underwent PEHR from 2016 to 2018. Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of gastrointestinal malignancy or a concurrent bariatric procedure. Patients ≥ 80 were compared to those 18-79 years old using standard statistical methods, and subgroup analyses of elective and non-elective PEHRs were performed. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2018, 46,450 patients were identified with 5425 (11.7%) octogenarians and 41,025 (88.3%) non-octogenarians. Octogenarians were more likely to have a non-elective operation (46.3% vs 18.2%, p < 0.001), and those undergoing non-elective PEHR had a higher mortality (5.5% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001). Outcomes were improved with elective PEHR, but octogenarians still had higher mortality (1.3% vs 0.2%, p < 0.001), longer LOS (3[2, 5] vs 2[1, 3] days, p < 0.001), and higher readmission rates within 30 days (11.1% vs 6.5%, p < 0.001) compared to non-octogenarian elective patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed that being an octogenarian was not independently predictive of mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.373[95% confidence interval 0.962-1.959], p = 0.081), but a non-elective operation was (OR 3.180[2.492-4.057], p < 0.001). Being an octogenarian was a risk factor for readmission within 30 days (OR 1.512[1.348-1.697], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians represented a substantial proportion of patients undergoing PEHR and were more likely to undergo a non-elective operation. Being an octogenarian was not an independent predictor of perioperative mortality, but a non-elective operation was. Octogenarians' morbidity and mortality was reduced in elective procedures but was still higher than non-octogenarians. Elective PEHR in octogenarians is reasonable but should involve a thorough risk-benefit analysis.

State-of-the-art abdominal wall reconstruction and closure.

Open ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. Appropriate patient selection and preoperative optimization are important to ensure high-quality outcomes and prevent hernia recurrence. Preoperative adjuncts such as the injection of botulinum toxin and progressive preoperative pneumoperitoneum are proven to help achieve fascial closure in patients with hernia defects and/or loss of domain. Operatively, component separation techniques are performed on complex hernias in order to medialize the rectus fascia and achieve a tension-free closure. Other important principles of hernia repair include complete reduction of the hernia sac, wide mesh overlap, and techniques to control seroma and other wound complications. In the setting of contamination, a delayed primary closure of the skin and subcutaneous tissues should be considered to minimize the chance of postoperative wound complications. Ultimately, the aim for hernia surgeons is to mitigate complications and provide a durable repair while improving patient quality of life.

Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center case-matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) is becoming increasingly common and is the minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). Thus far, there is little data directly comparing LIHR and RIHR. The purpose of this study will be to compare outcomes for LIHR and RIHR at a single center. METHODS: A prospective institutional hernia database was queried for patients who underwent transabdominal LIHR or RIHR from 2012 to 2020. The patients were then matched based on the surgeon performing the operation (single, expert hernia surgeon) and laterality of repair. Standard descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: There were 282 patients who met criteria for the study, 141 LIHR and 141 RIHR; 32.6% of patients in each group had a bilateral repair (p = 1.00). LIHR patients were slightly younger (54.4 ± 15.6 vs 58.6 ± 13.8; p = 0.03) but similar in terms of BMI (27.1 ± 5.1 vs 29.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.70) and number of comorbidities (2.9 ± 2.5 vs 2.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.59). Operative time was found to be longer in the RIHR group, but when evaluating RIHR at the beginning of the study versus the end of the study, there was a 50-min decrease in operative time (p < 0.01). Recurrence rates were low for both groups (0.7% vs 1.4%; p = 0.38) with mean follow-up time 13.0 ± 13.3 months. There was only one wound infection, which was in the robotic group. No patients required return to the operating room for complications relating to their surgery. There were no 30-day readmissions in the LIHR group and three 30-day readmissions in the RIHR group (p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: LIHR and RIHR are both performed with low morbidity and have comparable overall outcomes. The total charges were increased in the RIHR group. Either LIHR or RIHR may be considered when performing inguinal hernia repair and should depend on surgeon and patient preference; continued evaluation of the outcomes is warranted.

Outcomes of biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 open abdominal wall reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in a contaminated field is associated with an increased risk of wound complications, infection, and reoperation. The best method of repair and mesh choice in these operations have generated marked controversy. Our aim was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent AWR with biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 wounds. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution database was queried for AWR using biologic or synthetic mesh in CDC Class 3 and 4 wounds. Hernia recurrence and complications were measured. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predicting both. RESULTS: In total, 386 patients with contaminated wounds underwent AWR, 335 with biologic and 51 with synthetic mesh. Groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, and rate of diabetes. Biologic mesh patients had larger hernia defects (298 ± 233cm2 vs. 208 ± 155cm2; p = 0.004) and a higher rate of recurrent hernias (72.2% vs 47.1%; p < 0.001), comorbidities(5.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.2 ± 2.4, p < 0.01), and a nearly fivefold increase in Class 4 wounds (47.8% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001), while fascial closure trended to being less common (90.7% vs 96.1%; p = 0.078). Hernia recurrence was comparable between biologic and synthetic mesh (10.4% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.132). Wound complication rates were similar (36.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.699), but synthetic mesh had higher rates of mesh infection (1.2% vs 11.8%; p < 0.001) and infection-related resection (0% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001), with 66% of those synthetic mesh infections requiring excision. On logistic regression, wound complications (OR 5.96 [CI 1.60-22.17]; p = 0.008) and bridging mesh (OR 13.10 [CI 2.71-63.42];p = 0.030) predicted of hernia recurrence (p < 0.05), while synthetic mesh (OR 18.6 [CI 2.35-260.4] p = 0.012) and wound complications (OR 20.6 [CI 3.15-417.7] p = 0.008) predicted mesh infection. CONCLUSIONS: Wound complications in AWR with CDC class 3 and 4 wounds significantly increased mesh infection and hernia recurrence; failure to achieve fascial closure also increased hernia recurrence. Use of synthetic versus biologic mesh increased the mesh infection rate by 18.6 times.

Factors Predicting Increased Length of Stay in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have become increasingly popular in general surgery, yet no guidelines exist for an abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR)-specific program. We aimed to evaluate predictors of increased length of stay (LOS) in the AWR population to aid in creating an AWR-specific ERAS protocol. METHODS: A prospective, single institution hernia center database was queried for all patients undergoing open AWR (1999-2019). Standard statistical methods and linear and logistic regression were used to evaluate for predictors of increased LOS. Groups were compared based on LOS below or above the median LOS of 6 days (IQR = 4-8). RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 2,505 patients. On average, the high LOS group was older, with higher rates of CAD, COPD, diabetes, obesity, and pre-operative narcotic use (all P < .05). Longer LOS patients had more complex hernias with larger defects, higher rates of mesh infection/fistula, and more often required a component separation (all P < .05). Multivariate analysis identified age (ß0.04,SE0.02), BMI (ß0.06,SE0.03), hernia defect size (ß0.003,SE0.001), active mesh infection or mesh fistula (ß1.8,SE0.72), operative time (ß0.02,SE0.002), and ASA score >4 (ß3.6,SE1.7) as independently associated factors for increased LOS (all P < .05). Logistic regression showed that an increased length of stay trended toward an increased risk of hernia recurrence (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple patient and hernia characteristics are shown to significantly affect LOS, which, in turn, increases the odds of AWR failure. Weight loss, peri-operative geriatric optimization, prehabilitation of comorbidities, and operating room efficiency can enhance recovery and shorten LOS following AWR.

Emergency General Surgery Regionalization: Retrospective Cohort Study of Emergency General Surgery Patients at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) patients presenting at tertiary care hospitals may bypass local hospitals with adequate resources. However, many tertiary care hospitals frequently operate at capacity. We hypothesized that understanding patient geographic origin could identify opportunities for enhanced system triage and optimization and be an important first step for EGS regionalization and care coordination that could potentially lead to improved utilization of resources. METHODS: We analyzed patient zip code and categorized EGS patients who were cared for at our tertiary care hospital as potentially divertible if the southern region hospital was geographically closer to their home, regional hospital admission (RHA) patients, or local admission (LA) patients if the tertiary care facility was closer. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared for RHA and LA patients. RESULTS: Of 14 714 EGS patients presenting to the tertiary care hospital, 30.2% were categorized as RHA patients. Overall, 1526 (10.4%) patients required an operation including 527 (34.5%) patients who were potentially divertible. Appendectomy and cholecystectomy comprised 66% of the operations for potentially divertible patients. Length of stay was not significantly different (P = .06) for RHA patients, but they did have lower measured short-term and long-term mortality when compared to their LA counterparts (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: EGS diagnoses and patient geocode analysis can identify opportunities to optimize regional operating room and bed utilization. Understanding where EGS patients are cared for and factors that influenced care facility will be critical for next steps in developing EGS regionalization within our system.

Predicting rare outcomes in abdominal wall reconstruction using image-based deep learning models.

BACKGROUND: Deep learning models with imbalanced data sets are a challenge in the fields of artificial intelligence and surgery. The aim of this study was to develop and compare deep learning models that predict rare but devastating postoperative complications after abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: A prospectively maintained institutional database was used to identify abdominal wall reconstruction patients with preoperative computed tomography scans. Conventional deep learning models were developed using an 8-layer convolutional neural network and a 2-class training system (ie, learns negative and positive outcomes). Conventional deep learning models were compared to deep learning models that were developed using a generative adversarial network anomaly framework, which uses image augmentation and anomaly detection. The primary outcomes were receiver operating characteristic values for predicting mesh infection and pulmonary failure. RESULTS: Computed tomography scans from 510 patients were used with a total of 10,004 images. Mesh infection and pulmonary failure occurred in 3.7% and 5.6% of patients, respectively. The conventional deep learning models were less effective than generative adversarial network anomaly for predicting mesh infection (receiver operating characteristic 0.61 vs 0.73, P < .01) and pulmonary failure (receiver operating characteristic 0.59 vs 0.70, P < .01). Although the conventional deep learning models had higher accuracies/specificities for predicting mesh infection (0.93 vs 0.78, P < .01/.96 vs .78, P < .01) and pulmonary failure (0.88 vs 0.68, P < .01/.92 vs .67, P < .01), they were substantially compromised by decreased model sensitivity (0.25 vs 0.68, P < .01/.27 vs .73, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional deep learning models, generative adversarial network anomaly deep learning models showed improved performance on imbalanced data sets, predominantly by increasing model sensitivity. Understanding patients who are at risk for rare but devastating postoperative complications can improve risk stratification, resource utilization, and the consent process.

Preoperative botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection versus component separation techniques (CST) in complex abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR): A propensity-scored matched study.

BACKGROUND: Complete fascial closure significantly reduces recurrence rates and wound complications in abdominal wall reconstruction. While component separation techniques have clear effectiveness in closing large abdominal wall defects, preoperative botulinum toxin A has emerged as an adjunct to aid in fascial closure. Few data exist comparing preoperative botulinum toxin A to component separation techniques, and the aim was to do so in a matched study. METHODS: A prospective, single-center, hernia-specific database was queried, and a 3:1 propensity-matched study of patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction from 2016 to 2021 with botulinum toxin A versus component separation techniques was performed based on body mass index, defect width, hernia volume, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound classification. Demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Matched patients included 105 component separation techniques and 35 botulinum toxin A. There was no difference in tobacco use, diabetes, or body mass index (all P > .5). Hernia defects and volume were large for both the component separation techniques and botulinum toxin A groups (mean size: component separation techniques 286.2 ± 179.9 cm2 vs botulinum toxin A 289.7 ± 162.4 cm2; P = .73) (mean volume: 1,498.3 + 2,043.4 cm3 vs 2,914.7 + 6,539.4 cm3; P = .35). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound classifications were equivalent (CDC3 and 4%-39.1% vs 40.0%; P = .97). Component separation techniques were more frequently performed in European Hernia Society M1 hernias (21% vs 2.9%; P = .01). The botulinum toxin A group had fewer surgical site occurrences (32.4% vs 11.4%; P = .02) and surgical site infections (11.7% vs 0%; P = .04). In multivariate analysis, botulinum toxin A was associated with lower rates of surgical site occurrences (odds ratio = 5.3; 95% confidence interval [1.4-34.4]). There was no difference in fascial closure (90.5% vs 100%; P = .11) or recurrence (12.4% vs 2.9%; P = .10) with follow-up (22.8 + 29.7 vs 9.8 + 12.7 months; P = .13). CONCLUSION: In a matched study comparing patients with botulinum toxin A versus component separation techniques, there was no difference in fascial closure rates or in hernia recurrence between the 2 groups. Preoperative botulinum toxin A can achieve similar outcomes as component separation techniques, while decreasing the frequency of surgical site occurrences.

African American Patients Experience Worse Outcomes than Hispanic Patients Following Bariatric Surgery: an Analysis Using the MBSAQIP Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: Obesity rates in Hispanics and African Americans (AAs) are higher than in Caucasians in the USA, yet the rate of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) for weight loss remains lower for both Hispanics and AAs. METHODS: Patient demographics and outcomes of adult AA and Hispanic patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedures were analyzed using the MBSAQIP dataset [2015-2018] using unmatched and propensity-matched data. RESULTS: In total, 173,157 patients were included, of whom 98,185 were AA [56.7%] [21,163-RYGB; 77,022-SG] and 74,972 were Hispanic [43.3%] [20,282-RYGB; 54,690-SG]). Preoperatively, the AA cohort was older, had more females, and higher BMIs with higher rates of all tracked obesity-related medical conditions except for diabetes, venous stasis, and prior foregut surgery. Intra- and postoperatively, AAs were more likely to experience major complications including unplanned ICU admission, 30-day readmission/reintervention, and mortality. After propensity matching, the differences in ED visits, treatment for dehydration, 30-day readmission, 30-day intervention, and pulmonary embolism remained for both SG and RYGB cohorts. Progressive renal insufficiency and ventilator use lost statistical significance in both cohorts. Conversely, 30-day reoperation, postoperative ventilator requirement, unplanned intubation, unplanned ICU admission, and mortality lost significance in the RYGB cohort, but not SG patients. CONCLUSION: Outcomes for AA patients were worse than for Hispanic patients, even after propensity matching. After matching, differences in major complications and mortality lost significance for RYGB, but not SG. These data suggest that outcomes for RYGB may be driven by the presence and severity of pre-existing patient-related factors.

Risk factors for recurrence in blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias: A secondary analysis of a Western Trauma association multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated risk factors for recurrence of blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWH). METHODS: Twenty trauma centers identified repaired TAWH from January 2012 to December 2018. Logistic regression was used to investigate risk factors for recurrence. RESULTS: TAWH were repaired in 175 patients with 21 (12.0%) known recurrences. No difference was found in location, defect size, or median time to repair between the recurrence and non-recurrence groups. Mesh use was not protective of recurrence. Female sex, injury severity score (ISS), emergency laparotomy (EL), and bowel resection were associated with hernia recurrence. Bowel resection remained significant in a multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Female sex, ISS, EL, and bowel resection were identified as risk factors for hernia recurrence. Mesh use and time to repair were not associated with recurrence. Surgeons should be mindful of these risk factors but could attempt acute repair in the setting of appropriate physiologic parameters.

Impact of COVID-19 on volume of elective and nonelective ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The significant decrease in elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted fears that there would be an increase in emergency or urgent operations for certain disease states. The impact of COVID-19 on ventral hernia repair is unknown. This study aimed to compare volumes of elective and nonelective ventral hernia repairs performed pre-COVID-19 with those performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An analysis of a prospective database from 8 hospitals capturing patient admissions with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Procedure Coding System for ventral hernia repair from January 2017 through June 2021 were included. During, COVID-19 was defined as on or after March 2020. RESULTS: Comparing 3,558 ventral hernia repairs pre-COVID-19 with 1,228 during COVID-19, there was a significant decrease in the mean number of elective ventral hernia repairs per month during COVID-19 (pre-COVID-19: 61 ± 5 vs during COVID-19 19: 39 ± 11; P < .001), and this persisted after excluding the initial 3-month COVID-19 surge (61 ± 5 vs 42 ± 9; P < .001). There were fewer nonelective cases during the initial 3-month COVID-19 surge (32 ± 9 vs 24 ± 4; P = .031), but, excluding the initial surge, there was no difference in nonelective volume (32 ± 9 vs 33 ± 8; P = .560). During COVID-19, patients had lower rates of congestive heart failure (elective: 9.0% vs 6.6%; P = .0047; nonelective: 17.7% vs 11.6%; P < .001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (elective: 13.7% vs 10.2%; P = .017; nonelective: 17.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001) and underwent fewer component separations (10.2% vs 6.4%; P ≤ .001). Intensive care unit admissions decreased for elective ventral hernia repairs (7.7% vs 5.0%; P = .016). Length of stay, cost, and readmission were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Elective ventral hernia repair volume decreased during COVID-19 whereas nonelective ventral hernia repairs transiently decreased before returning to baseline. During COVID-19, patients appeared to be lower risk and less complex. The possible impact of the more complex patients delaying surgery is yet to be seen.