Bariatric Center Designation and Outcomes Following Repeat Abdominal Surgery in Bariatric Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Repeat abdominal surgery in the bariatric surgery patient population may be challenging for non-bariatric-accredited institutions. The impact of regionalized bariatric care on clinical outcomes for bariatric surgery patients requiring repeat abdominal surgery is currently unknown. This study aims to investigate the association between bariatric center designation and clinical outcomes following hepatobiliary, hernia, and upper and lower gastrointestinal operations among patients with prior bariatric surgery. METHODS: This is a cohort study of a large sample of Ontario residents who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2017. A comprehensive list of eligible abdominal operations was captured using administrative data. The primary outcome was 30-d complications. Secondary outcomes included 30-d mortality, readmission, and length of stay. RESULTS: Among the 3301 study patients, 1305 (40%) received their first abdominal reoperation following bariatric surgery at a designated bariatric center. Nonbariatric center designation was not associated with significantly higher rates of 30-d complications (5.73% versus 5.72%), mortality (0.80% versus 0.77%), readmissions (1.11% versus 1.85%), or median postoperative length of stay (4 versus 4 d). After grouping the category of reoperations, upper gastrointestinal (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.11) and abdominal wall hernia surgery (OR 0.52, CI 0.27-0.99) showed a lower adjusted OR for complications among bariatric centers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that after adjustment for case-mix and patient characteristics, bariatric surgery patients undergoing repeat abdominal surgery at nonbariatric centers is not associated with higher proportion of complications or mortality. Complex hernia surgery may be considered the most appropriate for referral.

Cross-border healthcare: A review and applicability to North America during COVID-19.

Cross-border healthcare is an international agreement for the provision of out of country healthcare for citizens of partnered countries. The European Union (EU) has established itself as a world leader in cross-border healthcare. During the Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the EU used this system to maximize utilization of resources. Countries with capacity accepted critically ill patients from overwhelmed nations, borders remained open to healthcare workers and those seeking medical care in an effort to share the burden of this pandemic. Significant research into the challenges and successes of cross-border healthcare was completed prior to COVID-19, which demonstrated significant benefit for patients. In North America, the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been more isolationist. The Canada-United States border has been closed and bans placed on healthcare workers crossing the border for work. Prior to COVID-19, cross-border healthcare was rare in North America despite its need. We reviewed the literature surrounding cross-border healthcare in the EU, as well as the need for a similar system in North America. We found the EU cross-border healthcare agreements are generally mutually beneficial for participating countries. The North American literature suggested a cross-border healthcare system is feasible. A number of challenges could be identified based on the EU experience. A prior agreement may have been beneficial during the COVID-19 crisis as many Canadian healthcare institutions-maintained capacity to accept critically ill patients.

Video Context Improves Performance in Identifying Operative Planes on Static Surgical Images.

BACKGROUND: Correct identification of the surgical tissue planes of dissection is paramount at the operating room, and the needed skills seem to be improved with realistic dynamic models rather than mere still images. The objective is to assess the role of adding video prequels to still images taken from operations on the precision and accuracy of tissue plane identification using a validated simulation model, considering various levels of surgeons' experience. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted involving 15 surgeons distributed to three equal groups, including a consultant group [C], a senior group [S], and a junior group [J]. Subjects were asked to identify and draw ideal tissue planes in 20 images selected at suitable operative moments of identification before and after showing a 10- second videoclip preceding the still image. A validated comparative metric (using a modified Hausdorff distance [%Hdu] for object matching) was used to measure the distance between lines. A precision analysis was carried out based on the difference in %Hdu between lines drawn before and after watching the videos, and between-group comparisons were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis of accuracy was done on the difference in %Hdu between lines drawn by the subjects and the ideal lines provided by an expert panel. The impact of videos on accuracy was assessed using a repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: The C group showed the highest preciseness as compared to the S and J groups (mean Hdu 9.17±11.86 versus 12.1±15.5 and 20.0±18.32, respectively, p <0.001) and significant differences between groups were found in 14 images (70%). Considering the expert panel as a reference, the interaction between time and experience level was significant ( F (2, 597) = 4.52, p <0.001). Although the subjects of the J group were significantly less accurate than other surgeons, only this group showed significant improvements in mean %Hdu values after watching the lead-in videos ( F (1, 597) = 6.04, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Adding video context improved the ability of junior trainees to identify tissue planes of dissection. A realistic model is recommended considering experience-based differences in precision in training programs.

Colonic displacement as a marker of endoscopic skill: development of a novel tool for endoscopy training.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a technically challenging procedure. The colonoscope is prone to forming loops in the colon, which can lead patient discomfort and even perforation. We hypothesized that expert endoscopists use techniques to avoid loop formation, identify and straighten loops earlier, and thus exert less force. METHODS: Using a commercially available physical colon simulator model (Kyoto Kagaku), electromagnetic tracking markers (NDI Medical) were placed along the mobile segments of the colon (sigmoid, transverse) to measure the degree of displacement of the colon as the scope was advanced to the cecum. The colon model was set for each participant to simulate a redundant alpha loop in the sigmoid colon. Gastroenterology and surgical trainees and attendings were assessed. Demographic data were collected for each participant. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants were enrolled in the study. There were 17 (22.7%) attending physicians, and 58 (77.3%) trainees. Attending physicians advanced the scope to the cecum faster. The mean time required for procedure completion was 360.5 s compared to 178.4 s for the trainee and attending groups respectively (mean difference: 182.1 s, 95% CI: 93.0, 269.7; p = 0.0002). Attending physicians exerted significantly lower mean colonic displacement than trainees. The mean colonic displacement was 79.8 mm for the trainee group and 57.9 mm for the attending group (mean difference: 21.9 mm, 95% CI: 2.6, 41.2; p = 0.04). Those who used torque steering caused lower maximum colonic displacement than those who used knob steering. CONCLUSION: Attending physicians advance the scope during colonoscopy in a manner that results in significantly less colonic displacement than resident trainees. Although prior studies have shown a difference in force application between endoscopists and inexperienced students, ours is the first to differentiate across varying degrees of endoscopic skill. Future studies will define metrics for incorporation into endoscopic training curricula, focusing on techniques that encourage safety and comfort for patients.

Risk factors for abdominal reoperations in bariatric patients.

BACKGROUND: With a growing bariatric population, a better understanding of the patient and health provider-related factors associated with later reoperations could help providers enhance follow-up and develop reliable benchmarking targets. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the patient and provider-related risk factors associated with abdominal reoperations in bariatric patients. SETTING: This is a cohort study using data from a large clinical registry of Ontario bariatric patients between 2010 and 2016. METHODS: A multilevel mixed effect logistic regression model using hospital and surgeon identifiers as random effects was performed to adjust for clustering of patients. The primary outcome was any abdominal operation performed within 2 years of primary bariatric surgery. RESULTS: Among a cohort of 10,946 bariatric patients (86.6% receiving gastric bypass surgery), 15.8% underwent an abdominal operation within 2 years and about a third of these were urgent. The multilevel analysis demonstrated that 98% of patient variation among reoperations was a result of patient characteristics rather than disparities between surgeons or center experience. Type of procedure was not a significant factor after adjustment for surgeon and hospital level experience (OR [odds ratio] .85, 95% CI [confidence interval] .70-1.03). Concurrent abdominal wall (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.26-4.59), hiatal hernia repairs (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02-1.62), and previously higher health care users (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.15-1.46) were most significantly associated with reoperations. CONCLUSION: Reoperations are significantly more common among certain bariatric patients, especially those undergoing concurrent hernia procedures. Reoperations were not associated with provider-related factors and may not be a suitable target for health provider benchmarking.

Preoperative malnutrition in patients with colorectal cancer.

Preoperative malnutrition in patients with colorectal cancer is associated with several postoperative consequences and poorer prognosis. Currently, there is a lack of a universal screening tool to assess nutritional status, and intervention to treat preoperative malnutrition is often neglected. This review summarizes and compares preoperative screening and interventional tools to help providers optimize malnourished patients with colorectal cancer for surgery. We found that nutritional screenings, such as the Subjectibe Global Assessment, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment, Prognostic Nutritional Index, Nutrition Risk Index, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Nutrition Risk Screening 2002, Nutrition Risk Score, serum albumin, and prealbumin, have all effectively predicted postoperative outcome. Physicians should consider which of these tools best fits their needs based on the their mode of assessment, efficiency, and specified parameters. Additionally, preoperative nutritional support, such as trimodal prehabilitation, modified peripheral parenteral nutrition, and N-3 fatty acid and arginine supplementation, which have also benefited patients postoperatively, ought to be implemented appropriately according to their ease of execution. Given the high prevalence of preoperative malnutrition in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer, it is essential that health care providers assess and treat this malnutrition to reduce postoperative complications and length of hospital stay, and to improve prognosis to augment a patient's quality of care.La malnutrition préopératoire chez les patients atteints d'un cancer colorectal est associée à plusieurs complications postopératoires et à un pronostic plus sombre. Il n'existe actuellement aucun outil universel d'évaluation du statut nutritionnel, et les mesures visant à corriger la malnutrition préopératoire font souvent défaut. La présente revue résume et compare les outils de dépistage et d'intervention préopératoires pour aider les professionnels à améliorer l'état des patients dénutris qui doivent subir une chirurgie pour le cancer colorectal. Nous avons constaté que le dépistage nutritionnel à l'aide de questionnaires tels que l'Évaluation globale subjective, l'Index nutritionnel pronostique, l'Outil universel de dépistage de la malnutrition, NRS 2002 (Nutrition Risk Screening 2002), l'évaluation du risque nutritionnel, et le dosage de l'albumine et de la préalbumine sériques, a permis de prédire avec justesse l'issue de la chirurgie. Les médecins devraient vérifier lequel de ces outils est le mieux adapté à leurs besoins selon leur modalité d'évaluation, leur efficience et autres paramètres spécifiques. Également, un soutien nutritionnel préopératoire, comme la préadaptation trimodale, la nutrition parentérale périphérique modifiée et les suppléments d'acides gras N-3 et d'arginine, qui ont aussi donné des résultats postopératoires favorables, devrait être appliqué selon sa facilité d'administration. Étant donné la forte prévalence de la malnutrition préopératoire chez les patients soumis à une chirurgie pour cancer colorectal, les professionnels de la santé se doivent d'évaluer et de corriger la malnutrition afin de prévenir les complications postopératoires, d'abréger la durée du séjour hospitalier, et d'améliorer ainsi le pronostic et la qualité des soins.

Safety of Same-day Discharge in High-risk Patients Undergoing Ambulatory General Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Same-day surgery is an increasingly utilized and cost-effective strategy to manage common surgical conditions. However, many institutions limit ambulatory surgical services to only healthy individuals. There is also a paucity of data on the safety of same-day discharge among high-risk patients. This study aims to determine whether same-day discharge is associated with higher major morbidity and readmission rates compared with overnight stay in high-risk general surgery patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort using the data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2005 to 2017. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 undergoing general surgical procedures amenable to same-day discharge were identified. Primary and secondary outcomes were major morbidity and readmission at 30 d. A multivariable logistic regression model using mixed effects was used to adjust for the effect of same-day discharge. RESULTS: Of 191,050 cases, 137,175 patients (72%) were discharged on the same day. At 30 d, major morbidity was 1.0%, readmission 2.2%, and mortality <0.1%. Adjusted odds ratio of same-day discharge was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.64; P < 0.001) for major morbidity and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.80; P < 0.001) for readmission. Significant risk factors for morbidity and readmission included nonindependent functional status, ascites, renal failure, and disseminated cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Major morbidity and readmission rates are low among this large sample of high-risk general surgery patients undergoing common ambulatory procedures. Same-day discharge was not associated with increased adverse events and could be considered in most high-risk patients after uncomplicated surgery.

Access to bariatric surgery among older patients in a publicly funded regionalized care system.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in older patients is safe and effective. Current guidelines do not endorse age limits for surgery; however, older patients may encounter difficulties with access given perceived risks. This study compares the adjusted probability of failing to receive bariatric surgery between older (≥ 60 years) and younger (< 60 years) patients referred to a publicly funded program. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients referred to a bariatric surgery program in Ontario from 2010-2016. Ontario health administrative databases and the Ontario Bariatric Registry were used for the analysis. The primary outcome was receipt of bariatric surgery within 3 years of referral. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of older age (≥ 60 years) on the probability of not receiving surgery. Sensitivity analysis was performed using only healthy patients. RESULTS: Among 19,510 patients referred to the program, 1,795 patients (9.2%) were ≥ 60 years old, of which 60% received bariatric surgery within 3 years compared to 90% in younger patients. The odds older patients do not receive surgery after adjustment were significantly higher compared to younger patients (OR 1.69 [1.52-1.88], P < .001). This effect persists even among a subgroup of older patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index = 0 (OR 1.78 [1.56-2.04], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age alone, rather than comorbidities had a more significant effect on the access to bariatric surgery in older patients. Given the demonstrated benefits of bariatric surgery in older populations, ensuring equity in access to bariatric surgery should be encouraged. Future research is required to explore the underlying reasons why older patients who could benefit from bariatric surgery may not have the opportunity.

Management of colonoscopic perforation: a systematic review and treatment algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize the current strategies used in the management of colonoscopic perforations as well as propose a modern treatment algorithm. METHODS: Articles published between January 2004 and January 2019 were screened. A total of 167 reports were identified in combined literature search, of which 61 articles were selected after exclusion of duplicate and unrelated articles. Only studies that reported on the management of endoscopic perforation in an adult population were retrieved for review. Case reports and case series of 8 patients or less were not considered. Ultimately, 19 articles were considered eligible for review. RESULTS: A total of 744 cases of colonoscopic perforations were reported in 19 major articles. The cause of perforation was mentioned in 16 articles. Colonoscopic perforations were reported as a consequence of diagnostic colonoscopies in 222 cases and therapeutic colonoscopies in 248 cases. The site of perforation was mentioned in 486 cases. Sigmoid colon was the predominant site followed by the cecum. The management of colonoscopic perforations was reported in a total of 741 patients. Surgical intervention was employed in 75% of the patients, of these 15% were laparoscopic and 85% required laparotomy. The predominant surgical intervention was primary repair. CONCLUSION: Management strategies of colon perforations depend upon the etiology, size, severity, location, available expertise, and general health status. Usually, peritonitis, sepsis, or hemodynamic compromise requires immediate surgical management. Endoscopic techniques are under continuous evolution. Newer developments have offered high success rate with least amount of post-procedure complications. However, there is a need for further studies to compare the newer endoscopic techniques in terms of success rate, cost, complications, and the affected part of colon.