Fascial Defect Closure During Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: During minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) it is unknown if a fascial defect closure, as opposed to a bridged repair (current care), is beneficial for patients. We sought to systematically review the published literature on the role of fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fascial defect closure with bridged repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep/organ-space surgical site infections (SSIs), reoperations, hernia recurrences, or deaths. Secondary outcomes included SSI, seroma, eventration, hernia recurrence, post-operative pain, and quality of life (QOL). Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained through random effect meta-analyses. Results: Of 579 screened articles, 6 publications of 5 RCTs were included. No significant difference in major complications (10.6% vs 10.4%, RR=1.05, 95% CI=0.51-2.14, P=.90) or recurrences (9.0% vs 10.6%, RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.32-2.61, P=.87) were found between groups. Fascial defect closure decreased the risk of seromas (22.9% vs 34.2%, RR=0.60, 95% CI=0.37-0.97, P=.04) and may decrease the risk of eventrations (6.7% vs 9.0%, RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.37-1.50, P=.41) at the expense of potentially increasing the risk of SSI (3.2% vs 1.4%, RR=1.89, 95% CI=0.60-5.93; P=.28). Reporting of pain and QOL scores was inconsistent. Conclusion: While most individual RCTs demonstrated benefit with fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR, our meta-analysis of fascial defect closure demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in seromas compared to bridged repair. Large, multi-center RCTs are needed.

Biologic Versus Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair: Participant-Level Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials at Twenty-Four to Thirty-Six Months.

Background: Biologic mesh has been used increasingly in complex ventral hernia repair despite limited evidence at low risk of bias supporting its use. Patients and Methods: We performed a participant-level analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologic to synthetic mesh with complex ventral hernia repair at 24 to 36 months. Primary outcome was major complication (composite of mesh infection, recurrence, reoperation, or death) at 24 to 36 months post-operative. Secondary outcomes included length of index hospital stay, surgical site occurrence, surgical site infection, and death. Outcomes were assessed using both frequentist and Bayesian generalized linear regression models. Results: A total of 252 patients from two RCTs were included, 126 patients randomized to the intervention arm of biologic and 126 patients to the control of synthetic mesh with median follow-up of 29 (23, 38) months. Major complication occurred in 33 (33%) patients randomized to biologic, and 39 (38%) patients randomized to synthetic mesh, (relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.31; p value = 0.600). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that compared with synthetic mesh, biologic mesh had similar probability of major complications at 24 to 36 months post-operative. The remainder of outcomes demonstrated slight benefit with synthetic mesh as opposed to biologic mesh except for mesh infection. However, under a frequentist framework, no outcome was statistically different. Conclusions: In patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair, there was no benefit for patients receiving biologic versus synthetic mesh at 24 to 36 months post-operative.

The Role of Biologic Mesh and Fundoplication in the Surgical Management of Hiatal Hernias: A Multicenter Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Hiatal hernia repair is associated with substantial recurrence of both hiatal hernia and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux (GER). While small randomized controlled trials demonstrate limited differences in outcomes with use of mesh or fundoplication type, uncertainty remains. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review of patients undergoing surgical treatment of hiatal hernias between 2015 and 2020 was performed. Patients with mesh and with suture-only repair were compared, and partial versus complete fundoplication was compared. Primary outcomes were hernia recurrence and occurrence of postoperative GER symptoms and dysphagia. Multivariable regression was performed to assess the effect of each intervention on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 453 patients from four sites were followed for a median (IQR) of 17 (13) months. On multivariate analysis, mesh had no impact on hernia recurrence (odds ratio 0.993, 95% CI: 0.53-1.87, p = 0.982), and fundoplication type did not impact recurrence of postoperative GER symptoms (complete: odds ratio 0.607, 95% CI: 0.33-1.12, p = 0.112) or dysphagia (complete: odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI: 0.56-2.43, p = 0.677). CONCLUSION: During hiatal hernia repair, mesh and fundoplication type do not appear to have substantial impact on GER symptoms, dysphagia, or hernia recurrence. This multicenter study provides real-world evidence to support the findings of small RCTs.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Report the 2-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. To our knowledge, no studies have been published to date comparing long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03490266). Clinical outcomes included surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, hernia occurrence, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 175 consecutive patients were approached that were deemed eligible for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. In all, 124 were randomized and 101 completed follow-up at 2 years. Two-year follow-up was completed in 54 patients (83%) in the robotic arm and 47 patients (80%) in the laparoscopic arm. No differences were seen in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence. Hernia recurrence occurred in 2 patients (4%) receiving robotic repair versus in 6 patients (13%) receiving laparoscopic repair (relative risk: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.06-1.39; P =0.12). No patients (0%) required reoperation in the robotic arm whereas 5 patients (11%) underwent reoperation in the laparoscopic arm ( P =0.019, relative risk not calculatable due to null outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated at least similar if not improved outcomes at 2 years compared with laparoscopy. There is potential benefit with robotic repair; however, additional multi-center trials and longer follow-up are needed to validate the hypothesis-generating findings of this study.

Evaluation of ICARUS Guidelines and Recommendations Not Supported by Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The ICARUS guidelines are a systematic review and Delphi process that provide recommendations in the treatment and management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Many of the recommendations were supported by randomized trials; some were not. This study assesses guidelines with limited evidence and weak endorsement. METHODS: Four ICARUS guidelines were chosen: the role of fundoplication for patients with BMI > 35, regurgitation, chest pain, and extra-esophageal symptoms. A multicenter database of patients undergoing fundoplication surgery for GERD between 2015 and 2020 was used. Outcomes assessed were anatomic failure and symptom recurrence. Multivariable regression was performed. RESULTS: Five institutions performed a fundoplication on 461 patients for GERD with a median of follow-up of 14.7 months (IQR 14.2). On multivariate analysis, patients with the chosen pre-operative comorbidities achieved comparable post-operative benefits. Patients with a BMI > 35 were not more likely to experience anatomic failure. Patients with pre-operative regurgitation had similar symptom recurrence rates to those without. Patients with non-cardiac chest pain had comparable rates of symptom recurrence to those without. Reporting a pre-operative chronic cough attributable to reflux was not associated with higher rates of post-operative symptom recurrence. DISCUSSION: Among the ICARUS guidelines and recommendations, a small proportion was lacking evidence at low risk for bias and endorsement. The results of this multicenter study evaluated outcomes of patients with various pre-operative conditions: BMI > 35, chest pain attributable to reflux, extra-esophageal symptoms attributable to reflux, and regurgitation. Our findings endorse patients with these characteristics as candidates for anti-reflux surgery.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Prevention of Midline Incisional Hernias: A Publication Bias Adjusted Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature on the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement of midline laparotomy closures for prevention of VIH. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VIH are common complications of abdominal surgery. Prophylactic mesh has been proposed as an adjunct to prevent their occurrence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were reviewed for RCTs that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus conventional suture closure of midline abdominal surgery. Primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up ≥24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection and surgical site occurrence (SSO). Pooled risk ratios were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare mesh types and locations. RESULTS: Of 1969 screened articles, 12 RCTs were included. On meta-analysis there was a lower incidence of VIH with prophylactic mesh [11.1% vs 21.3%, Relative risk (RR) = 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-0.55, P < 0.001), however, publication bias was highly likely. When adjusted for this bias, prophylactic mesh had a more conservative effect (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.39-0.70). There was no difference in risk of surgical site infection (9.1% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.82-1.43; P = 0.118), however, prophylactic mesh increased the risk of SSO (14.2% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.19-2.05; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Current RCTs suggest that in mid-term follow-up prophylactic mesh prevents VIH with increased risk for SSO. There is limited long-term data and substantial publication bias.

Systematic Review of Treatment of Patients with Achalasia: Heller Myotomy, Pneumatic Dilation, and Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to assess all comparative randomized controlled trials evaluating Heller myotomy, pneumatic dilation, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. STUDY DESIGN: Achalasia is an esophageal motility disorder associated with degeneration of the myenteric plexus; it causes significant symptoms and impacts patient quality of life (QOL). The optimal treatment for patients with achalasia and the impact of these interventions on QOL remain unclear. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched from inception to April 2020. Randomized controlled trials that compared the 3 interventions were included. Primary outcome was QOL at 12 to 36 months after the operation. Secondary outcomes included reintervention, dysphagia, leak/perforation, and GERD recurrence. RESULTS: Nine publications of 6 studies were included. Of the 9 publications, there was no significant difference in QOL at 12 to 36 months except for one study in which QOL was significantly higher in patients who underwent Heller myotomy as opposed to pneumatic dilation at 3 years; however, at 5 years there was no difference. Pneumatic dilation was associated with the highest rates of dysphagia recurrence and reintervention, but peroral endoscopic myotomy had the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of achalasia should be chosen in accordance with patient goals. After any of the 3 interventions, QOL appears to be similar. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy may be associated with the lowest rates of perforation/leak, dysphagia, and reintervention and may be the lowest risk option. However, there are barriers to widespread use due to challenges in training and adoption.

Safety and Feasibility of Performing Antireflux Procedures at a Safety Net Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: One-half of Americans have limited access to health care; these patients often receive care through safety net hospitals, which are associated with worse medical outcomes. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients who received foregut surgery at a safety net hospital to those at a private or university hospital. We hypothesized that patients treated at the safety net hospital will have a greater rate of radiographic recurrence and reoperations. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair or fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease at an affiliated safety net, private, or university hospital from June 2015 to May 2020. The primary outcome was radiographic recurrence. The secondary outcomes included reoperation and symptom recurrence. Analysis was performed using analysis of variance, chi-square, and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were identified: 157 at a safety net hospital, 233 at a private hospital, and 119 at a university hospital. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 16 (13) mo. The safety net hospital treated more Hispanics, females, and patients with comorbidities. Large hiatal hernias were more common at the safety net and private hospitals. Robotic surgery was more frequently at the university hospital. There was no difference in radiographic recurrence (13.4% versus 19.7% versus 17.6%; P = 0.269), reoperation (3.8% versus 7.2% versus 6.7%; P = 0.389), or postoperative dysphagia (15.3% versus 12.6% versus 15.1%; P = 0.696). On logistic regression, there were no differences in outcomes among institutions. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that despite the challenges faced at safety net hospitals, it could be feasible to safely perform minimally invasive foregut surgery with similar outcomes to private and university hospitals.

Reproducing Statistics Performed in Published Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) represent evidence at the lowest potential risk for bias. Clinicians in all specialties depend upon RCTs to guide patient care. Issues such as statistical discordance, or reporting statistical results that cannot be reproduced, should be uncommon. Our aim was to confirm the statistical reproducibility of published RCTs. METHODS: PubMed was searched using "randomized controlled trial." Studies were selected using a random number generator. Studies were included if the primary outcome could be reproduced using the data and statistical test reported in the manuscript. The reproduced p-value from our analysis and the published p-value were compared. Primary outcome was the number of studies that reported p-values that differed in statistical significance (crossed p-value=0.05) from the reproduction analysis. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 0.80, an estimated rate of statistical discordance of 5% for RCTs, a total of at least 568 studies were required. RESULTS: Overall, 572 RCTs were selected involving six specialties. Of these, 45% were positive (p<0.05) studies. Eleven (2%) published results that differed from the reproduction analysis and crossed the p=0.05 threshold. All 11 studies were positive studies (while the reproduction analysis demonstrated p≥0.05). CONCLUSION: Less than 5% of published RCTs reported a discordant p-value that crossed the "p=0.05" threshold. Although the occurrence is uncommon, the existence of even one RCT publishing nonreproducible results is concerning. Future studies should seek to identify why some RCTs report discordant statistics and how to prevent this from occurring.

Review of SAGES GERD guidelines and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study is to evaluate guidelines lacking agreement among experts (grades B-D) or lacking support from randomized controlled trials (levels II-III). METHODS: Six guidelines were chosen for evaluation. A retrospective review of a multicenter database of patients undergoing fundoplication surgery for treatment of GERD between 2015 and 2020 was performed. Patients that underwent a concurrent gastrectomy or were diagnosed with pre-operative achalasia were excluded. Demographics, pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative variables were collected. Post-operative outcomes were evaluated based on selected SAGES guidelines. Outcomes were assessed using multivariable regression or stratified analysis for each guideline. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients from four institutions underwent surgery for the management of GERD with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 16 (13) months. Guidelines supported by our data were (1) robotic repair has similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic repair, (2) outcomes in older patients are similar to outcomes of younger patients undergoing antireflux surgery, and (3) following laparoscopic antireflux surgery, dysphagia has been reported to significantly improve from pre-operative values. Guidelines that were not supported were (1) mesh reinforcement may be beneficial in decreasing the incidence of wrap herniation, (2) a bougie has been found to be effective, and (3) the long-term effectiveness of fundoplication in obese individuals (BMI > 30) has been questioned due to higher failure rates. CONCLUSION: Many SAGES GERD guidelines not receiving Grade A or Level I recommendation are supported by large, multicenter database findings. However, further studies at low risk for bias are needed to further refine these guidelines.

Is expectant management warranted in patients with ventral hernias and co-morbidities? A prospective, 5 year follow-up, patient-centered study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to report the natural history of operative versus expectant management of patients with ventral hernias and co-morbidities at five years. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Patients were managed with elective repair or expectantly, based on co-morbidities and patient/surgeon choice. Primary outcome was functional status. Patients were matched using optimal matching. Outcomes were compared using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were included (78 operative, 119 expectant) with median follow-up of 5.1 (3.2-5.5) years. In the matched-cohort (n = 80), 58 vs 68% were obese, and 88% vs 95% had a major comorbidity. Both groups had similar baseline functional status (p = 0.788), but only those repaired initially had significantly improved scores at five years (p < 0.050). Half (20) of patients managed expectantly crossed over to repair, and 15% (3) were emergent/urgent. CONCLUSION: Initial repair improves long-term functional status significantly compared to expectant management. Repair by hernia experts should be considered for high-risk patients.

Two-year Outcomes of Prehabilitation Among Obese Patients With Ventral Hernias: A Randomized Controlled Trial (NCT02365194).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if preoperative nutritional counseling and exercise (prehabilitation) improve outcomes in obese patients seeking ventral hernia repair (VHR)? SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Obesity and poor fitness are associated with complications following VHR. It is unknown if preoperative prehabilitation improves outcomes of obese patients seeking VHR. METHODS: This is the 2-year follow-up of a blinded randomized controlled trial from 2015 to 2017 at a safety-net academic institution. Obese patients (BMI 30-40) seeking VHR were randomized to prehabilitation versus standard counseling. Elective VHR was performed once preoperative requirements were met: 7% total body weight loss or 6 months of counseling and no weight gain. Primary outcome was percentage of hernia-free and complication-free patients at 2 years. Complications included recurrence, reoperation, and mesh complications. Primary outcome was compared using chi-square. We hypothesize that prehabilitation in obese patients with VHR results in more hernia- and complication-free patients at 2-years. RESULTS: Of the 118 randomized patients, 108 (91.5%) completed a median (range) follow-up of 27.3 (6.2-37.4) months. Baseline BMI (mean±SD) was similar between groups (36.8 ±â€Š2.6 vs 37.0 ±â€Š2.6). More patients in the prehabilitation group underwent emergency surgery (5 vs 1) or dropped out of the program (3 vs 1) compared to standard counseling (13.6% vs 3.4%, P = 0.094). Among patients who underwent surgery, there was no difference in major complications (10.2% vs 9.1%, P = 0.438). At 2-years, there was no difference in percentage of hernia-free and complication-free patients (72.9% vs 66.1%, P = 0.424, 1.14, 0.88-1.47). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in 2-year outcomes of obese patients seeking VHR who undergo prehabilitation versus standard care. Prehabilitation may not be warranted in obese patients undergoing elective VHR.Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02365194).

Randomized controlled trials published on patients with hernias have a high percentage of unreproducible statistics.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons rely on randomized controlled trials (RCT) to compare the effectiveness of treatments. RCTs require careful planning and substantial effort to complete. Because of the careful study design, statistics performed are often easy to reproduce such as Chi-squared or t-test. Issues such as statistical discordance, or reporting statistical results that cannot be reproduced, should be uncommon. METHODS: RCTs pertaining to hernias were identified in PubMed using the search terms "hernia" and "randomized controlled trial." Studies were selected using a random number generator. Studies were included if the primary outcome could be reproduced using the data and statistical test reported in the manuscript. Discordance between the obtained p-value from our analysis and the published p-value was assessed. Primary outcome was the number of studies that reported p-values that crossed the level of statistical significance (p-value = 0.05) but on reproduction analysis did not. RESULTS: Of the 100 included RCTs, five reported p-values that crossed the "p = 0.05" threshold that our team was unable to reproduce using the statistical test reported in the manuscript. An additional three studies reported p-values that crossed the "p = 0.05" threshold that our team was unable to reproduce using the appropriate statistical test (i.e., Fisher's exact test when all expected cell counts < 5). All eight studies published p-values < 0.05, whereas, our re-analysis demonstrated p ≥ 0.05. CONCLUSION: Eight percent of the RCTs analyzed in this study reported p-values < 0.05 that on reproduction analysis was ≥ 0.05. The next steps should be to determine reasons for discordance and how to prevent this from happening.

Validation of the minimal clinically important difference for modified activities assessment scale.

BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in patient-derived scores that is clinically important. We sought to validate the MCID of the modified activities assessment scale (mAAS). METHODS: Patients were surveyed prior to undergoing abdomen/pelvis CT scans and resurveyed one year later. Before resurvey, patients were asked if they had no change, worsening, or improvement in AW-QOL. The anchor-based MCID was calculated by taking a weighted mean of the difference between control (no change) and study (worsening/improved) groups. Distribution-based approach was calculated by one-half of the standard deviation in the QOL change. RESULTS: 52.8% of 181 patients self-reported no change, 39.2% reported improvement, and 8.3% reported worsening AW-QOL. The anchor-based approach MCID was 4. The distribution-based MCID was 16. CONCLUSION: Our study results validate prior work demonstrating similar ranges of the mAAS MCID. We recommend adopting an MCID of 5 and 15 for AW-QOL with mAAS.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown. PURPOSE: To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: One-year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) at 1-year postoperative. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a relative lack of research at low risk for bias assessing robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), the growth of RVHR has been rapid. We previously reported short-term results of the first randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR; there was no clear difference in clinical outcomes but increased operative time and cost with robotic repair. METHODS: Patients from a multicenter, blinded randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR were followed at 1 year. Outcomes included wound complication (surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, wound dehiscence), hernia occurrence including recurrence and port site hernia, readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (functional status, pain, and satisfaction with repair and cosmesis). RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were randomized and 113 patients (91%; 60 robot, 53 laparoscopic) completed 1-year follow-up. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. No differences were seen in wound complication (15% vs 15%; P = 0.899), hernia recurrence (7% vs 9%; P = 0.576), or readmission (2% vs 6%; P = 0.251). No patients underwent reoperation in the robotic arm, whereas 5 (9%) did in the laparoscopic arm (P = 0.020). No differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes. Both arms reported clinically significant improvements in functional status, low pain scores, and high satisfaction scores at 1-year post repair. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Gender Disparity Among American Medicine and Surgery Physicians: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Disparity exists between men and women physicians. We aimed to examine changes in gender disparity in the medical profession over the last two decades. The study reviewed publications on gender differences and the measures which have been implemented or suggested to rectify these disparities. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched in December 2019 using ("gender disparity" OR "gender gap" OR "pay gap" OR "gender discrimination") from 1998-2019. The sources list of reviewed articles was also used to retrieve more relevant articles. Articles about physicians in the United States were included, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. RESULTS: In this systematic review that includes 49 studies, there is still disparity and discrimination in research, leadership, and pay between male and female physicians. Women have less leadership roles and progress at a slower rate to associate and full professor. Women publish less articles and have a lower h-index than men. Men earn $20,000 more a year after salary adjustment. More women than men experience negative comments about their gender (36% vs 4%), experience gender discrimination (65% vs 10%) and sexual harassment (30% vs 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although substantial research exists on this topic, there remains significant room for improvement to achieve gender equality. Institutions and individuals should implement interventions to rectify this disparity .

Postoperative Work and Activity Restrictions After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess what is known about convalescence following abdominal surgery. Through a review of the basic science and clinical literature, we explored the effect of physical activity on the healing fascia and the optimal timing for postoperative activity. BACKGROUND: Abdominal surgery confers a 30% risk of incisional hernia development. To mitigate this, surgeons often impose postoperative activity restrictions. However, it is unclear whether this is effective or potentially harmful in preventing hernias. METHODS: We conducted 2 separate systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The first assessed available basic science literature on fascial healing. The second assessed available clinical literature on activity after abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Seven articles met inclusion criteria for the basic science review and 22 for the clinical studies review. The basic science data demonstrated variability in maximal tensile strength and time for fascial healing, in part due to differences in layer of abdominal wall measured. Some animal studies indicated a positive effect of physical activity on the healing wound. Most clinical studies were qualitative, with only 3 randomized controlled trials on this topic. Variability was reported on clinician recommendations, time to return to activity, and factors that influence return to activity. Interventions designed to shorten convalescence demonstrated improvements only in patient-reported symptoms. None reported an association between activity and complications, such as incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified gaps in our understanding of what is best for patients recovering from abdominal surgery. Randomized controlled trials are crucial in safely optimizing the recovery period.

Is robotic surgery feasible at a safety net hospital?

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery offers potential advantages of improved ability to complete procedures using a minimally invasive approach, recovery, and clinical outcomes. It has been previously established that safety net hospitals are outliers for surgical complications. As such, the adoption of new technology may not achieve the same outcomes as other institutions. We hypothesized that, compared to laparoscopic and open surgeries, robotic surgeries have fewer post-operative Clavien-Dindo complications at our safety net hospital. METHODS: All robotic surgeries performed from 2017 to 2019 at a single, safety net hospital were reviewed. Cases were matched 1:3 to laparoscopic controls. Surgeries commonly performed open were additionally matched 1:3 to open counterparts. The primary outcome was Clavien-Dindo complications at 90 days post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included inadvertent enterotomy, conversion to open, operative duration, wound class, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), length of stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 160 robotic surgeries were included and matched to 480 laparoscopic surgeries and 108 open surgeries. Open surgeries were associated with greater risk of Clavien-Dindo complication (OR = 2.7, p = 0.040, 95% confidence interval 1.0-6.9) than either robotic or laparoscopic surgeries. Robotic cases had increased operative duration when compared to laparoscopic (p < 0.001) but not open cases (p = 0.093). No difference was seen in enterotomy, conversion to open, SSI, SSO, LOS, reoperation, readmission, or recurrence between robotic and laparoscopic, and robotic and open cases. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible at a safety net hospital. Robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were associated with fewer Clavien-Dindo complications than open surgery, but no differences were seen between robotic and laparoscopic cases. Robotic surgery, compared to both laparoscopic and open surgery, had longer operative durations. Further studies are needed to assess the value of robotic as opposed to laparoscopic surgery in a safety net setting.