Point of care biliary ultrasound in the emergency department (BUSED) predicts final surgical management decisions.

Objectives: Gallstone disease is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation. Surgeons often prefer radiology department ultrasound (RUS) over point of care ultrasound (POCUS) because of perceived of unreliability. Our study was designed to test the hypothesis that POCUS is sufficient to guide the management of surgeons treating select cases of biliary disease as compared to RUS. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. Patients who presented to the ED with abdominal pain and findings of biliary disease on POCUS were included. The surgeon was then presented the case with POCUS only and recorded their management decision. Patients then proceeded to RUS, were followed through their stay, and analysis was performed to analyze the proportion of patients where the introduction of the RUS changed the management plan. Results: 100 patients were included in this study, and all received both POCUS and RUS. Depending on the surgeons' POCUS based management decisions, the patients were divided into three groups: (1) surgery, (2) duct clearance, (3) no surgery. Total bilirubin was 34±22 mmol/L in the duct clearance group vs 8.4±6.5 mmol/L and 16±12 mmol/L in the surgery and no surgery groups, respectively (p<0.05). POCUS results showed 68 patients would have been offered surgery, 21 offered duct clearance, and 11 no surgery. In 90% of cases, the introduction of RUS did not change management. The acute care surgeons elected to operate on patients more frequently than other surgical subspecialties (p<0.05). Conclusions: This study showed that fewer than 10% of patients with biliary disease seen on POCUS had a change in surgical decision-making based on the addition of RUS imaging. In uncomplicated cases of biliary disease, relying on POCUS imaging for surgical decision-making has the potential to improve patient flow. Level of evidence: II Prospective Cohort Study.

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.

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.

Pre-operative stenting and complications following pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP registry.

BACKGROUND: Historically, pre-operative biliary stenting has been associated with higher infectious complication rates following pancreatoduodenectomy. However, alleviation of biliary obstruction is necessary for consideration of pre-operative chemotherapy, which may improve disease-free survival, or for mitigation of symptoms while awaiting surgery. Our aim is to compare contemporary post-operative complication risk among patients with pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) stenting compared to those without. METHODS: Patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer with biliary obstruction within the ACS-NSQIP registry from 2014 to 2017 were identified. The primary outcome was to compare the risk of 30-day complication (composite outcome) between patients with and without pre-operative ERCP stenting. Propensity score matching was used to ensure balanced baseline characteristics and log-binomial regression models were used to estimate risk ratios for overall perioperative complication between groups. RESULTS: From 6073 patients with obstructive jaundice undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer, 92% (5564) were eligible for the study. After performing a propensity score matching on 20 baseline characteristics, 952 patients without stenting were matched to up to four patients who received pre-operative ERCP stenting (n = 3467) for a matched cohort of 4419. A total of 1901 (55%) patients with pre-operative ERCP stenting experienced a post-operative complication compared to 501 (53%) patients without stenting (risk ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.11, p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Pre-operative ERCP stenting was not associated with an increased risk of post-operative complication in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with obstructive jaundice. Biliary stenting may be safely considered for symptom relief and to potentially facilitate pre-operative chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

Mental health quality of life after bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Recent literature has raised concerns regarding the risk of adverse psychiatric events among bariatric surgery patients. However, the relationship between weight loss therapy and psychiatric outcomes is confounded by baseline psychosocial characteristics in observational studies. To understand the impact of bariatric surgery on the risk of adverse mental health outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared surgical and non-surgical treatments and assessed mental health quality of life (QoL). We evaluated the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science PsycINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane databases through 7 March 2018. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for mental health QoL scores were estimated using random effects models. Eleven randomized trials with 731 participants were included in the final analyses. Surgery was not associated with an improvement in mental health QoL from baseline as compared to non-surgical intervention (SMD: 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to 0.25). Final mental health QoL scores were similar for surgically and non-surgically treated patients (SMD: 0.37, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.81). Subgroup analyses assessing the effect of specific surgical interventions, and varying lengths of follow-up did not identify a beneficial effect of bariatric surgery on mental health QoL outcomes. These results, in conjunction with the fact that individuals who choose bariatric surgery tend to have high-risk baseline characteristics, suggest that intensive mental health follow-up following surgery should be routinely considered.

Liver resection for non-colorectal, non-carcinoid, non-sarcoma metastases: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The role of liver resection for non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine, non-sarcoma (NCNNNS) metastases is ill-defined. This study aimed to examine the oncologic outcomes of liver resection in such patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of liver resection for NCNNNS metastases was performed at two large centers. Liver resection was offered selectively in patients with stable disease. Oncologic outcomes were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent liver resection for NCNNNS metastases. Overall 5-year survival was 58%. Five-year survival was 85% for breast metastases, 66% for ocular melanoma, 83% for other melanomas, 50% for gastro-esophageal metastases, and 0% for renal cell carcinoma metastases. A contemporary colorectal liver metastasis cohort had a survival of 63% (p=0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection is an effective option in the management of selected patients with NCNNNS metastases which have been deemed stable. Five-year survival rates were comparable to that of a contemporary cohort of patients with colorectal liver metastases in carefully selected patients. Further, larger studies are required to help identify potential prognostic variables and aid in decision-making in this heterogeneous population.

Low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Retinal vein occlusion is a frequent cause of visual loss for which few effective therapies are available. Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin might be of value in its treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis of randomized trials evaluating the effect of low molecular weight heparin in patients with retinal vein occlusion. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, the Cochrane Library, Lilacs, the Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science database and gray literature. Main outcome was the mean difference between the visual acuity measured at baseline and at six months expressed in the logMAR scale. Secondary outcome was a composite of any adverse ocular outcome including: worsening of visual acuity, visual fields or fluorescein angiography, or development of iris neovascularization, any neovascularization or neovascular glaucoma. Subgroup analyses for branch versus central retinal vein occlusion were conducted. We identified 1,084 references of which 3 studies comparing low molecular weight heparin with aspirin (229 evaluable patients) were included. Overall, the pooled mean visual acuity difference was -0.23 logMAR (95% CI -0.38, -0.09; P=0.002) in favor of low molecular weight heparin. Low molecular weight heparin was associated with a 78% risk reduction for developing any adverse ocular outcome (pooled RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.10, 0.46; P<0.001). In subgroup analyses benefits seemed lower in branch retinal vein occlusion. No increased vitreous hemorrhages were observed. In patients with retinal vein occlusion treatment with low molecular weight heparin seems to be associated with improvement in the visual acuity and less adverse ocular outcomes. These benefits might differ in patients with central as opposed to branch retinal vein occlusion. Further studies are required to confirm these findings and clarify its benefits in specific subgroups of patients before definitive recommendations can be made.