Association of Preoperative Glycosylated Hemoglobin Level with 30-Day Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: an Analysis of the ACS-MBSAQIP Database.

PURPOSE: Elevated glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality following several cardiac, colorectal, orthopedic, and vascular surgery operations. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a HgA1c cut-point that can be used in patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to decrease the risk of 30-day wound events and additional 30-day morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing first-time, elective Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 2017 and 2018 with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) and a preoperative HbA1c level were identified within the American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (ACS-MBSAQIP) database. The association of preoperative HbA1c levels with 30-day morbidity and mortality was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 13,806 patients met inclusion criteria. Two natural HbA1c inflection points for composite wound events, including superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infections (SSI) and wound dehiscence, were found. A HbA1c level of ≤ 6.5% was associated with a decreased odds of experiencing the composite 30-day wound event outcome while a HbA1c level of > 8.6% was associated with an increased odds of experiencing the composite 30-day wound event outcome. The differences in the incidence of the 30-day composite wound event outcomes were driven primarily by superficial and organ space SSI, including anastomotic leaks. CONCLUSION: Patients with DM being evaluated for RYGB surgery with a HbA1c level > 8.6% are at an increased risk for 30-day wound events, including superficial and organ space SSI.

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. RESULTS: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.