Disparities in Access, Quality, and Clinical Outcome for Latino Californians with Colon Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare access, quality, and clinical outcomes between Latino and non-Latino White Californians with colon cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer care remain understudied, particularly among patients who identify as Latino. Exploring potential mechanisms, including differential utilization of high-volume hospitals, is an essential first step to designing evidence-based policy solutions. METHODS: We identified all adults diagnosed with colon cancer between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 from a statewide cancer registry linked to hospital administrative records. We compared survival, access (stage at diagnosis, receipt of surgical care, treatment at a high-volume hospital), and quality of care (receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, adequacy of lymph node resection) between patients who identified as Latino and as non-Latino White. RESULTS: 75,543 patients met inclusion criteria, including 16,071 patients who identified as Latino (21.3%). Latino patients were significantly less likely to undergo definitive surgical resection (marginal difference [MD] -0.72 percentage points, 95% CI -1.19,-0.26), have an operation in a timely fashion (MD -3.24 percentage points, 95% CI -4.16,-2.32), or have an adequate lymphadenectomy (MD -2.85 percentage points, 95% CI -3.59,-2.12) even after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Latino patients treated at high-volume hospitals were significantly less likely to die and more likely to meet access and quality metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Latino colon cancer patients experienced delays, segregation, and lower receipt of recommended care. Hospital-level colectomy volume appears to be strongly associated with access, quality, and survival--especially for patients who identify as Latino--suggesting that directing at-risk cancer patients to high-volume hospitals may improve health equity.

Does Rectoanal Intussusception Limit Improvements in Clinical Outcome and Quality of Life After Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence?

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is a treatment option for severe, medically refractory fecal incontinence, although its use in patients with anatomic abnormalities remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether patients with rectoanal intussusception achieve similar benefits from device implantation to patients without rectoanal intussusception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Demographics and clinical data were collected for each patient, including preoperative pelvic floor testing. Defecographies were reanalyzed in a blinded manner. Preoperative rectoanal intussusception was determined on the basis of the Oxford system (grade III-IV vs not; grade V excluded). SETTINGS: Academic-affiliated pelvic health center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence between July 2011 and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Fecal Incontinence Severity Indices, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Indices at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence during the study period. The average age was 60.3 years and 91% were female. Forty-six patients (27.2%) had concomitant rectoanal intussusception (38 patients [22.5%] grade III and 8 patients [4.7%] grade IV). Before surgery, patients reported an average of 10.8 accidents per week and a Wexner score of 15.7, with no difference between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception ( p = 0.22 and 0.95). At 1 year after surgery, the average Wexner score was 9.5. There was no difference in postoperative Wexner scores (10.4 vs 9.2, p = 0.23) or improvement over time between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception (-6.7 vs -5.7, p = 0.40). Similarly, there was no difference in quality of life or frequency of incontinence to liquid or solid stool. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution, moderate sample size, incomplete survey response. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant rectoanal intussusception does not appear to affect clinical outcomes or quality of life after sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Appropriate patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception can be considered for sacral nerve stimulation placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192 . LA INTUSUSCEPCIN RECTOANAL LIMITA LAS MEJORAS EN EL RESULTADO CLNICO Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUS DE LA NEUROESTIMULACION SACRA PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL: ANTECEDENTES:La neuroestimulación sacra es una opción de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal grave refractaria al tratamiento médico, aunque su uso en pacientes con anomalías anatómicas sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Determinar si los pacientes con intususcepción rectoanal logran beneficios similares de la implantación del dispositivo a los pacientes sin intususcepción rectoanal.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y clínicos de cada paciente, incluidas las pruebas preoperatorias del piso pélvico. Las defecografías se volvieron a analizar de forma ciega. La intususcepción rectoanal preoperatoria se determinó según el sistema de Oxford (grado III-IV vs. no; grado V excluido).ESCENARIO:Centro académico de salud pélvica.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes sometidos a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal entre julio de 2011 y julio de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Índices de gravedad de la incontinencia fecal, Índices de calidad de vida de la incontinencia fecal al año.RESULTADOS:169 pacientes se sometieron a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal durante el período de estudio. La edad promedio fue de 60.3 años y el 91% eran mujeres. Cuarenta y seis pacientes (27.2%) tenían intususcepción rectoanal concomitante (38 [22.5%] grado III y 8 [4.7%] grado IV). Antes de la cirugía, los pacientes informaron un promedio de 10.8 accidentes por semana y una puntuación de Wexner de 15.7 sin diferencia entre pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (p = 0.22 y 0.95). Un año después de la cirugía, la puntuación promedio de Wexner fue de 9.5. No hubo diferencia en las puntuaciones de Wexner posoperatorias (10.4 frente a 9.2, p = 0.23) o mejoría con el tiempo entre los pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (-6.7 frente a -5.7, p = 0.40). De manera similar, no hubo diferencia en la calidad de vida o la frecuencia de incontinencia de heces líquidas o sólidas.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, tamaño de muestra moderado, respuesta de encuesta incompleta.CONCLUSIÓN:La intususcepción rectoanal concomitante no parece afectar los resultados clínicos o la calidad de vida después de la neuroestimulación sacra para la incontinencia fecal. Los pacientes apropiados con incontinencia fecal e intususcepción rectoanal pueden ser considerados para la neuroestimulación sacra. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192(Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Using AI and computer vision to analyze technical proficiency in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative skills assessment is time-consuming and subjective; an efficient and objective computer vision-based approach for feedback is desired. In this work, we aim to design and validate an interpretable automated method to evaluate technical proficiency using colorectal robotic surgery videos with artificial intelligence. METHODS: 92 curated clips of peritoneal closure were characterized by both board-certified surgeons and a computer vision AI algorithm to compare the measures of surgical skill. For human ratings, six surgeons graded clips according to the GEARS assessment tool; for AI assessment, deep learning computer vision algorithms for surgical tool detection and tracking were developed and implemented. RESULTS: For the GEARS category of efficiency, we observe a positive correlation between human expert ratings of technical efficiency and AI-determined total tool movement (r = - 0.72). Additionally, we show that more proficient surgeons perform closure with significantly less tool movement compared to less proficient surgeons (p < 0.001). For the GEARS category of bimanual dexterity, a positive correlation between expert ratings of bimanual dexterity and the AI model's calculated measure of bimanual movement based on simultaneous tool movement (r = 0.48) was also observed. On average, we also find that higher skill clips have significantly more simultaneous movement in both hands compared to lower skill clips (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, measurements of technical proficiency extracted from AI algorithms are shown to correlate with those given by expert surgeons. Although we target measurements of efficiency and bimanual dexterity, this work suggests that artificial intelligence through computer vision holds promise for efficiently standardizing grading of surgical technique, which may help in surgical skills training.

Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Patients With a New Cancer Diagnosis Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans vs Traditional Insurance.

Importance: The financial burden of a cancer diagnosis is increasing rapidly with advances in cancer care. Simultaneously, more individuals are enrolling in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) vs traditional insurance than ever before. Objective: To characterize the out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) of cancer care for individuals in HDHPs vs traditional insurance plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the administrative claims data of a single national insurer in the US for 134 826 patients aged 18 to 63 years with a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or other cancer from 2008 to 2018 with 24 months or more of continuous enrollment. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparator groups based on the presence or absence of an incident cancer diagnosis. Exposures: A new cancer diagnosis and enrollment in an HDHP vs a traditional health insurance plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was OOPCs among individuals with breast, colon, lung, or all other types of cancer combined compared with those with no cancer diagnosis. A triple difference-in-differences analysis was performed to identify incremental OOPCs based on cancer diagnosis and enrollment in HDHPs vs traditional plans. Results: After propensity score matching, 134 826 patients remained in each of the cancer (73 572 women [55%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-58 years]; 110 071 non-Hispanic White individuals [82%]) and noncancer (66 619 women [49%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-59 years]; 105 023 non-Hispanic White individuals [78%]) cohorts. Compared with baseline costs of medical care among individuals without cancer, a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with the highest incremental OOPC ($714.68; 95% CI, $664.91-$764.45), followed by lung ($475.51; 95% CI, $340.16-$610.86), colorectal ($361.41; 95% CI, $294.34-$428.48), and all other types of cancer combined ($90.51; 95% CI, $74.22-$106.79). Based on the triple difference-in-differences analysis, compared with patients without cancer enrolled in HDHPs, those with breast cancer paid $1683.36 in additional yearly OOPCs (95% CI, $1576.66-$1790.07), those with colorectal cancer paid $1420.06 more (95% CI, $1232.31-$1607.80), those with lung cancer paid $467.25 more (95% CI, $130.13-$804.37), and those with other types of cancer paid $550.87 more (95% CI, $514.75-$586.99). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with cancer and private insurance experienced sharp increases in OOPCs compared with those without cancer, which was amplified among those with HDHPs. These findings illustrate the degree to which HDHPs offer poorer protection than traditional insurance against unexpected health care expenses. Coupled with the increasing cost of cancer care, higher cost sharing in the form of increasing enrollment in HDHPs requires further research on the potential clinical consequences through delayed or foregone care.

The Association Between Risk Aversion of Surgeons and Their Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which a surgeon's risk aversion influences their clinical decisions remains unknown. We assessed whether a surgeon's attitude toward risk ("risk aversion") influences their surgical decisions and whether the relationship can be explained by differences in surgeons' perception of treatment risks and benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We presented a series of detailed clinical vignettes to a national sample of surgeons (n = 1,769; 13.4% adjusted response rate) and asked them to complete an instrument that measured how risk averse they are within their clinical practice (scale 6-36; higher number indicates greater risk aversion). For each vignette, participants rated their likelihood of recommending an operation and judged the likelihood of complications or full recovery. We examined whether differences in perceived likelihood of complications versus recovery could explain why risk-averse surgeons may be less likely to recommend an operation. RESULTS: Surgeons varied in their self-reported risk aversion score (median = 25, interquartile range[22,28]). Scores did not differ by level of surgeon experience or gender. Risk-averse surgeons were significantly less likely to recommend an operation for patients with exactly the same condition (65.5% for surgeons in highest quartile of risk aversion versus 62.3% for lowest quartile; P = 0.02). However, after controlling for surgeons' perception of the likelihood of complications versus recovery, there was no longer a significant association between surgeons' risk aversion and the decision to recommend an operation (64.7% versus 64.8%; P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons vary widely in their self-reported risk aversion. Risk-averse surgeons were significantly less likely to recommend an operation, a finding that was explained by a higher perceived probability of post-operative complications than their colleagues.

Rectovaginal Fistulas Secondary to Obstetrical Injury.

Rectovaginal fistula (RVF), defined as any abnormal connection between the rectum and the vagina, is a complex and debilitating condition. RVF can occur for a variety of reasons, but frequently develops following obstetric injury. Patients with suspected RVF require thorough evaluation, including history and physical examination, imaging, and objective evaluation of the anal sphincter complex. Prior to attempting repair, sepsis must be controlled and the tract allowed to mature over a period of 3 to 6 months. All repair techniques involve reestablishing a healthy, well-vascularized rectovaginal septum, either through reconstruction with local tissue or tissue transfer via a pedicled flap. The selection of a specific repair technique is determined by the level of the fistula tract and the status of the anal sphincter. Despite best efforts, recurrence is common and should be discussed with patients prior to repair. As the ultimate goal of RVF repair is to minimize symptoms and maximize quality of life, patients should help to direct their own care based on the risks and benefits of available treatment options.

Assessing Knowledge and Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Armenia.

BACKGROUND: Armenia has a high incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). No organized screening programs for CRC exist in Armenia. This study seeks to evaluate knowledge of and attitudes toward CRC and screening programs in Armenia. METHODS: Adults aged 40-64 y were administered a survey using convenience sampling throughout polyclinics in Yerevan city. Survey questions were based on the Health Belief Model and were translated and modified for local relevance. RESULTS: A total of 368 surveys were completed. Eighty-four percent had knowledge of CRC, 91% believed that early detection leads to improved outcomes, but only 22% had knowledge of screening. Women were more likely to have knowledge of CRC (odds ratio 2.19, P < 0.05). Although 19% have personally worried about having CRC, only 7% admitted to discussing their worries with a provider and 76% were willing to undergo screening if recommended by their doctor. Seventy-eight percent of respondents would only undergo screening if free or less than ~$20 USD. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported knowledge of CRC is high, whereas knowledge of screening remains low in Armenia. There is a willingness to undergo screening if recommended by a health care professional; however, this willingness is cost-sensitive. Interventions aimed at (1) increasing awareness of the disease and screening tests, (2) improving physician counseling, and (3) reducing financial barriers to screening should be considered along with the implementation of a national screening program in Armenia.

Operative Incision and Drainage for Perirectal Abscesses: What Are Risk Factors for Prolonged Length of Stay, Reoperation, and Readmission?

BACKGROUND: Perirectal abscess is a common problem. Despite a seemingly simple disease to manage, clinical outcomes of perirectal abscesses can vary significantly given the wide array of patients who are susceptible to this disease. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to evaluate the outcomes after operative incision and drainage for perirectal abscess and to examine factors associated with length of stay, reoperations, and readmissions. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted with hospitals participating in the surgical database. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing outpatient perirectal abscess procedures from 2011 through 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study outcomes were length of stay, reoperation, and readmission. RESULTS: We identified 2358 patients undergoing incision and drainage for perirectal abscesses. Approximately 35% of patients required hospital stay. Reoperations occurred in 3.4%, with median time to reoperation of 15.5 days. The majority of reoperations (79.7%) were performed for additional incision and drainage. Readmissions rate was 3.0%, with median time to readmission of 10.5 days. Common indications for readmissions included recurrent/persistent abscess (41.4%) and fever/sepsis (8.6%). Risk factors for hospitalization in multivariable analysis were preoperative sepsis, bleeding disorder, and non-Hispanic black and Hispanic races. For reoperations, risk factors included morbid obesity, preoperative sepsis, and dependent functional status. Lastly, for readmissions, female sex, steroid/immunosuppression, and dependent functional status were significant risk factors. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective analysis and potential selection bias in decisions on hospital stay, reoperation, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal outcomes after outpatient operative incision and drainage for perirectal abscesses are not uncommon in the United States. In the era of value-based care, additional work is needed to optimize use outcomes for high-risk patients undergoing perirectal incision and drainage. Strategies to prevent inadequate drainage at the time of the initial operative incision and drainage (ie, use of imaging modalities and thorough examination under anesthesia) are warranted to improve patient outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B229. INCISIÓN Y DRENAJE QUIRÚRGICOS DE ABSCESOS PERIRRECTALES: CUALES SON LOS FACTORES DE RIESGO PARA UNA ESTADÍA PROLONGADA, REINTERVENCIÓN Y READMISION?: Los abscesos perirrectales son un problema frecuente. A pesar que parecen ser una afección aparentemente simple de manejar, los resultados clínicos de la incisión y drenaje quirúrgicos pueden variar significativamente dada la amplia variedad de pacientes susceptibles de sufrir esta afección.Evaluar los resultados después de la incisión y el drenaje quirúrgicos de un absceso perirrectal y analizar los factores asociados con la duración de la hospitalización, la reoperación y la readmisión.Análisis retrospectivo de la base de datos del Programa Americano de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica.Hospitales que participan en la base de datos quirúrgica.Pacientes adultos sometidos a incisión y drenaje quirúrgico ambulatorio de un absceso perirrectal desde 2011 hasta 2016.Los resultados del estudio fueron la duración de la hospitalización, la reoperación y el reingreso.Fueron estudiados 2,358 pacientes sometidos a incisión y drenaje por abscesos perirrectales. Aproximadamente el 35% de los pacientes requirieron hospitalización. Las reoperaciones ocurrieron en 3.4% con una mediana de tiempo de reoperación de 15.5 días. La mayoría de las reoperaciones (79.7%) se realizaron para una incisión y drenaje adicionales. La tasa de reingreso fue del 3.0% con una mediana de tiempo de reingreso de 10.5 días. Las indicaciones comunes para los reingresos incluyeron abscesos recurrentes / persistentes (41.4%) y fiebre / sepsis (8.6%). Los factores de riesgo para la hospitalización en el análisis multivariable fueron sepsis preoperatoria, trastorno hemorrágico, raza negra no hispánica y raza hispana. Para las reoperaciones, los factores de riesgo incluyeron obesidad mórbida, sepsis preoperatoria y estado funcional dependiente. Por último, para los reingresos, el sexo femenino, uso de corticoides / inmunosupresores y un estadío funcional dependiente fueron factores de riesgo significativos.Análisis retrospectivo y posible sesgo de selección en las decisiones sobre hospitalización, reoperación y reingreso.Un resultado poco satisfactorio después de la incisión quirúrgica el drenaje de abscesos perirrectales ambulatoriamente no son infrecuentes en los Estados Unidos. En la era de la atención basada en los resultados, se necesita mucho más trabajo para optimizar los mismos en pacientes de alto riesgo sometidos a incisión y drenaje perirrectales. Las estrategias para prevenir el drenaje inadecuado en el momento de la incisión quirúrgica inicial y el drenaje (es decir, el uso de modalidades de imágenes, un examen completo bajo anestesia) son una garantía para mejorar los resultados en estos pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B229.

Injury-specific variables improve risk adjustment and hospital quality assessment in severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Hospital benchmarking is essential to quality improvement, but its usefulness depends on the ability of statistical models to adequately control for inter-hospital differences in patient mix. We explored whether the addition of injury-specific clinical variables to the current American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) algorithm would improve model fit. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective registry containing all adult patients who presented to a regional consortium of 14 trauma centers between 2010 and 2011 with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We used hierarchical logistic regression and stepwise forward selection to develop two novel risk-adjustment models. We then tested our novel models against the current TQIP model and ranked hospitals by their risk-adjusted mortality rates under each model to determine how model selection affects quality benchmarking. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-four patients met inclusion criteria. Stepwise selection resulted in two distinct models: one that added three TBI-specific variables (pupil reactivity, cerebral edema, loss of basal cisterns) to the model specification currently used by TQIP and another that combined two TBI-specific variables (pupil reactivity, cerebral edema) with a three-variable subset of TQIP (age, Abbreviated Injury Scale score for the head region, Glasgow Coma Scale motor score). Both novel models outperformed TQIP. Although rankings remained largely unchanged across model configurations, several hospitals moved across quality terciles. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of injury-specific variables improves risk adjustment for patients with severe TBI. Trauma Quality Improvement Program should consider replacing several of its general patient characteristics with injury-specific clinical predictors to increase efficiency, reduce the risk of overfitting, and improve the accuracy of hospital benchmarking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level II.

Rescue Diverting Loop Ileostomy: An Alternative to Emergent Colectomy in the Setting of Severe Acute Refractory IBD-Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute refractory colitis has traditionally been an indication for emergent colectomy in IBD, yet under these circumstances patients are at elevated risk for complications because of their heightened inflammatory state, nutritional deficiencies, and immunocompromised state. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that rescue diverting loop ileostomy may be a viable alternative to emergent colectomy, providing the opportunity for colonic healing and patient optimization before more definitive surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case series. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a single academic center. PATIENTS: Patients with severe acute medically refractory IBD-related colitis were included. INTERVENTION: Rescue diverting loop ileostomy was the intervening procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was avoidance of urgent/emergent colectomy. The secondary outcome was efficacy, defined by 3 clinical aims: 1) reduced steroid dependence or opportunity for bridge to medical rescue, 2) improved nutritional status, and 3) ability to undergo an elective laparoscopic definitive procedure or ileostomy reversal with colon salvage. RESULTS: Among 33 patients, 14 had Crohn's disease and 19 had ulcerative colitis. Three patients required urgent/emergent colectomy, 2 with ulcerative colitis and 1 with Crohn's disease. Across both disease cohorts, >80% of patients achieved each clinical aim for efficacy: 88% reduced their steroid dependence or were able to bridge to medical rescue, 87% improved their nutritional status, and 82% underwent an elective laparoscopic definitive procedure or ileostomy reversal. A total of 4 patients (11.7%) experienced a postoperative complication following diversion, including 3 surgical site infections and 1 episode of acute kidney injury. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by being a single-center, retrospective series. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue diverting loop ileostomy in the setting of severe, refractory IBD-colitis is a safe and effective alternative to emergent colectomy. This procedure has acceptably low complication rates and affords patients time for medical and nutritional optimization before definitive surgical intervention. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A520.

Patient Outcomes at Urban and Suburban Level I Versus Level II Trauma Centers.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Regionalized systems of trauma care and level verification are promulgated by the American College of Surgeons. Whether patient outcomes differ between the 2 highest verifications, Levels I and II, is unknown. In contrast to Level II centers, Level I centers are required to care for a minimum number of severely injured patients, have immediate availability of subspecialty services and equipment, and demonstrate research, substance abuse screening, and injury prevention. We compare risk-adjusted mortality outcomes at Levels I and II centers. METHODS: This was an analysis of data from the 2012 to 2014 Los Angeles County Trauma and Emergency Medical Information System. The system includes 14 trauma centers: 5 Level I and 9 Level II centers. Patients meeting criteria for transport to a trauma center are routed to the closest center, regardless of verification level. All adult patients (≥15 years) treated at any of the trauma centers were included. Outcomes of patients treated at Level I versus Level II centers were compared with 2 validated risk-adjusted models: Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and the Haider model. RESULTS: Adult subjects (33,890) were treated at a Level I center; 29,724, at a Level II center. We found lower overall mortality at Level II centers compared with Level I, using TRISS (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.78) and Haider (odds ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.97). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients treated at urban and suburban trauma centers, treatment at a Level II trauma center was associated with overall risk-adjusted reduced mortality relative to that at a Level I center. In the subset of penetrating trauma, no differences in mortality were found. Further study is warranted to determine optimal trauma system configuration and allocation of resources.

The cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management versus laparoscopic appendectomy for the treatment of acute, uncomplicated appendicitis in children.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the safety and short-term success of nonoperative management in children with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Nonoperative management spares the patients and their family the upfront cost and discomfort of surgery, but also risks recurrent appendicitis. METHODS: Using decision-tree software, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management versus routine laparoscopic appendectomy. Model variables were abstracted from a review of the literature, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and Medicare Physician Fee schedule. Model uncertainty was assessed using both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We used a $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) threshold for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Operative management cost $11,119 and yielded 23.56 quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). Nonoperative management cost $2277 less than operative management, but yielded 0.03 fewer QALMs. The incremental cost-to-effectiveness ratio of routine laparoscopic appendectomy was $910,800 per QALY gained. This greatly exceeds the $100,000/QALY threshold and was not cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis found that operative management would become cost-effective if the 1-year recurrence rate of acute appendicitis exceeded 39.8%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that nonoperative management was cost-effective in 92% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our model, nonoperative management is more cost-effective than routine laparoscopic appendectomy for children with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cost-Effectiveness Study: Level II.

Same-Day Discharge in Laparoscopic Acute Non-Perforated Appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Small studies done during the past decade have demonstrated same-day discharge after appendectomy as an option for non-perforated appendicitis. Here we have examined a large cohort to confirm that same-day discharge in acute non-perforated appendicitis is a safe option. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of patients from 14 Southern California Region Kaiser Permanente medical centers. All patients older than 18 years of age with acute, non-perforated appendicitis who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy between 2010 and 2014 were included. We compared patients discharged on the day of surgery with patients hospitalized for 1 night. We examined readmission rates, complication rates, postoperative emergency department visits, postoperative diagnostic or therapeutic radiology visits, reoperations, and cost of treatment. RESULTS: The cohort was composed of 12,703 patients; 6,710 patients were in the same-day discharge group and 5,993 patients were in the hospitalized group. Patients in the same-day discharge group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days when compared with the hospitalized group (2.2% vs 3.1%; p < 0.005). In both groups, postoperative rates of visits to emergency or radiology department for diagnostic or therapeutic imaging studies were statistically similar. Postoperative general surgery department visits were slightly higher in the hospitalized group (85% vs 81%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with acute, non-perforated appendicitis can be discharged safely on the day of surgery without higher rates of postoperative complication or readmission rates compared with those hospitalized after surgery. In addition, same-day discharge in this patient group is cost-effective.

Perineural bupivacaine injection reduces inguinodynia after inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Inguinodynia, defined as pain lasting >3 months after inguinal hernia repair, remains the major complication of hernia operation. We sought to determine the effect of direct perineural infiltration on acute pain and inguinodynia after open inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: Patients who presented with an inguinal hernia at a university teaching hospital were evaluated prospectively and randomized to either (1) percutaneous ilioinguinal nerve block or (2) percutaneous ilioinguinal nerve block with additional perineural infiltration of the ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, genitofemoral nerves. All patients in each group received a total of 12 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine. Self-reported faces of pain level (1-10), minutes to discharge from the recovery room, narcotic quantity consumed (oxycodone 5 mg/paracetamol 325 mg), days on narcotics, and incidence of inguinodynia at 3 months were all recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were randomized in the study. Patients who received perineural bupivacaine infiltration of nerves had less recovery room pain (1.3 vs 3.9, P < .001) and shorter recovery discharge times (89 vs 105 min, P = .047) and consumed fewer narcotics (9.7 vs 15.1 doses, P = .010). The incidence of inguinodynia at 3 months was less in the treatment group (8.2% vs 27.9%, P = .013). CONCLUSION: We have implemented a novel and inexpensive method of local nerve blockade that decreases pain immediately after operation and at 3 months postoperatively. Furthermore, our method leads to shorter recovery room stay and fewer narcotics after operation.

Impact of a Risk Calculator on Risk Perception and Surgical Decision Making: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether exposure to data from a risk calculator influences surgeons' assessments of risk and in turn, their decisions to operate. BACKGROUND: Little is known about how risk calculators inform clinical judgment and decision-making. METHODS: We asked a national sample of surgeons to assess the risks (probability of serious complications or death) and benefits (recovery) of operative and nonoperative management and to rate their likelihood of recommending an operation (5-point scale) for 4 detailed clinical vignettes wherein the best treatment strategy was uncertain. Surgeons were randomized to the clinical vignettes alone (control group; n = 384) or supplemented by data from a risk calculator (risk calculator group; n = 395). We compared surgeons' judgments and decisions between the groups. RESULTS: Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator judged levels of operative risk that more closely approximated the risk calculator value (RCV) compared with surgeons in the control group [mesenteric ischemia: 43.7% vs 64.6%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 25%); gastrointestinal bleed: 47.7% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 38%); small bowel obstruction: 13.6% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 14%); appendicitis: 13.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 5%)]. Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator also varied less in their assessment of operative risk (standard deviations: mesenteric ischemia 20.2% vs 23.2%, P = 0.01; gastrointestinal bleed 17.4% vs 24.1%, P < 0.001; small bowel obstruction 10.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001; appendicitis 15.2% vs 21.8%, P < 0.001). However, averaged across the 4 vignettes, the 2 groups did not differ in their reported likelihood of recommending an operation (mean 3.7 vs 3.7, P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to risk calculator data leads to less varied and more accurate judgments of operative risk among surgeons, and thus may help inform discussions of treatment options between surgeons and patients. Interestingly, it did not alter their reported likelihood of recommending an operation.