Validation of the Adapted Clavien-Dindo in Trauma (ACDiT) Classifications in Medical and Surgical Management of Acute Diverticulitis.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the adapted Clavien-Dindo in trauma (ACDiT) tool as a novel outcome measure for patients with acute diverticulitis managed both operatively and nonoperatively. BACKGROUND: Complications following diverticulitis are difficult to classify because no traditional tools address patients managed both operatively and nonoperatively. The ACDiT grading system-graded from 0 to 5b-is applied in this manner but has not yet been validated for this patient group. METHODS: We performed a 5-year observational study of patients with acute diverticulitis at a safety-net hospital. Baseline demographics and hospitalization data were collected. ACDiT scores were assigned, and validation was undertaken by comparing scores with hospital-free days, and verifying that higher scores were associated with known risk factors for poor outcomes. Inverse probability weighted propensity scores were assigned for surgical management, and inverse probability weighted regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with ACDiT ≥ grade 2. RESULTS: Of 260 patients, 188 (72%) were managed nonoperatively. Eighty (31%) developed a complication; 73 (91%) were grades 1 to 3b. Higher grades correlated inversely with hospital-free days (rs = -0.67, P < 0.0001) for all patients and for nonoperative (rs = -0.63, P < 0.0001) and operative (rs = -0.62, P < 0.0001) patients. Hinchey 2 to 3 and initial operative management had higher odds of having a complication of ACDiT ≥ grade 2. CONCLUSION: The ACDiT tool was successfully applied to acute diverticulitis patients managed operatively and nonoperatively, is associated with known risk factors for adverse outcomes. ACDiT may be considered a meaningful outcome measure for comparing strategies for acute diverticulitis.

Synthetic versus Biologic Mesh for Complex Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Many surgeons utilize biologic mesh for elective complex ventral hernia repair (VHR; large hernias, contaminated fields, or patients with comorbid conditions). However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biologic and synthetic mesh. We hypothesize biologic mesh would result in fewer major complications at one-year post-operative compared with synthetic mesh. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center, pilot RCT. All eligible patients undergoing complex, open VHR were randomly assigned to receive biologic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular position. Primary outcome was major complications, namely, a composite of mesh infection, recurrence, or re-operation at one-year post-operative. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections (SSI), seromas, hematomas, wound dehiscence, re-admissions, and Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Outcomes were assessed using Fisher exact test and Bayesian generalized linear models. Results: Of 87 patients, 44 were randomly assigned to biologic mesh and 43 to synthetic mesh. Most cases were wound class 2-4 (68%) and 75% had a hernia width >4 cm. Most patients were obese (70%) and had an American Society of Anesthesiogists (ASA) score of 3-4 (53%). Compared with patients in the synthetic mesh group, patients in the biologic mesh group had a higher percentage of: major complications at one-year post-operative (42.4% vs. 21.6%; relative risk [RR] = 1.96 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.94-4.08]; number needed to harm = 4.8; p = 0.071); SSI (15.9% vs. 9.3%; RR = 1.71 [95% CI = 0.54-5.42]; p = 0.362); wound dehiscence (25.0% vs. 14.0%; RR = 1.79 [95% CI = 0.73-4.41]; p = 0.205); and re-admissions (22.7% vs 9.3%; RR = 2.44 [95% CI = 0.83-7.20]; p = 0.105). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that compared with synthetic mesh, biologic mesh had a 95% probability of increased risk of major complications at one-year post-operative. No clear evidence of a difference was found on seromas, hematomas, or Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Conclusions: In elective complex open VHR, biologic mesh demonstrated no benefit compared with synthetic mesh in one-year outcomes. Moreover, Bayesian analysis suggests that biologic mesh may have an increased probability of major complications.

Is the American College of Surgeons Online Communities a safe and useful venue to ask for surgical advice?

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons rely on the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Community Forums for advice on managing complex patients. Our objective was to assess the safety and usefulness of advice provided on the most popular surgical forum. METHODS: Overall, 120 consecutive, deidentified clinical threads were extracted from the General Surgery community in reverse chronological order. Three groups of three surgeons (mixed academic and community perspectives) evaluated the 120 threads for unsafe or dangerous posts. Positive and negative controls for safe and unsafe answers were included in 20 threads, and reviewers were blinded to their presence. Reviewers were free to access all online and professional resources. RESULTS: There were 855 unique responses (median 7, 2-15 responses per thread) to the 120 clinical threads/scenarios. The review teams correctly identified all positive and negative controls for safety. While 58(43.3%) of threads contained unsafe advice, the majority (33, 56.9%) were corrected. Reviewers felt that a there was a standard of care response for 62/120 of the threads of which 50 (80.6%) were provided by the responses. Of the 855 responses, 107 (12.5%) were considered unsafe/dangerous. CONCLUSION: The ACS Community Forums are generally a safe and useful resource for surgeons seeking advice for challenging cases. While unsafe or dangerous advice is not uncommon, other surgeons typically correct it. When utilizing the forums, advice should be taken as a congregate, and any single recommendation should be approached with healthy skepticism. However, social media such as the ACS Forums is self-regulating and can be an appropriate method for surgeons to communicate challenging problems.

Understanding Patients' Experiences of Diagnosis and Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer in a Safety-Net Hospital System: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Greater understanding of barriers to screening of colorectal cancer among lower socioeconomic, particularly Hispanic, patients is needed to improve disparities in care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore patients' perceptions and experiences of care seeking for colorectal cancer to identify barriers to early diagnosis and treatment. DESIGN: This explorative qualitative study was conducted as a focused ethnography of patients diagnosed with advanced-stage colorectal cancer. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at an urban safety-net hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty lower-income, primarily minority, patients diagnosed with stage III and IV colorectal cancer without prior colorectal cancer screening were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were participants' perceptions and experiences of colorectal cancer and barriers they faced in seeking diagnosis and treatment RESULTS:: Data analysis yielded 4 themes consistently influencing participants' decisions to seek diagnosis and treatment: 1) limited resources for accessing care (structural barriers, including economic, health care and health educational resources); 2) (mis)understanding of symptoms by patients; misdiagnosis of symptoms, by physicians; 3) beliefs about illness and health, such as relying on faith, or self-care when symptoms developed; and 4) reactions to illness, including maintenance of masculinity, confusing interactions with physicians, embarrassment, and fear. These 4 themes describe factors on the structural, health care system, provider and patient level, that interact to make engaging in prevention foreign among this population, thus limiting early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by selection bias and the lack of generalizability. CONCLUSION: Improving screening rates among lower-income populations requires addressing barriers across the multiple levels, structural, personal, health care system, that patients encounter in seeking care for colorectal cancer. Acknowledging the complex, multilevel influences impacting patient health care choices and behaviors allows for the development of culturally tailored interventions, and educational, financial, and community resources to decrease disparities in cancer screening and care and improve outcomes for these at-risk patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A473.

Shared decision-making during surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient perspectives regarding shared decision-making is crucial to providing informed, patient-centered care. Little is known about perceptions of vulnerable patients regarding shared decision-making during surgical consultation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a validated tool reflects perceptions of shared decision-making accurately among patients seeking surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted in a sample of adult patients with gallstones evaluated at a safety-net surgery clinic between May to July 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after their initial surgical consultation and analyzed for emerging themes. Patients were administered the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Autonomy Preference Scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with shared decision-making and to compare the results of the surveys to those of the interviews. RESULTS: The majority of patients (N = 30) were female (90%), Hispanic (80%), Spanish-speaking (70%), and middle-aged (45.7 ± 16 years). The proportion of patients who perceived shared decision-making was greater in the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire versus the interviews (83% vs 27%, P < .01). Age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, diagnosis, Autonomy Preference Scale score, and decision for operation was not associated with shared decision-making. Contributory factors to this discordance include patient unfamiliarity with shared decision-making, deference to surgeon authority, lack of discussion about different treatments, and confusion between aligned versus shared decisions. CONCLUSION: Available questionnaires may overestimate shared decision-making in vulnerable patients suggesting the need for alternative or modifications to existing methods. Furthermore, such metrics should be assessed for correlation with patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction with decisions and health status.

Facilitators and barriers of implementing enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery at a safety net hospital: A provider and patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways are known to decrease complications and duration of stay in colorectal surgery patients. However, it is unclear whether an ERAS pathway would be feasible and effective at a safety-net hospital. The aim of this study was to identify local barriers and facilitators before the adoption of an ERAS pathway for patients undergoing colorectal operations at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess the perceived barriers and facilitators before ERAS adoption. Stratified purposive sampling was used. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis. Analytic and investigator triangulation were used to establish credibility. RESULTS: Interviewees included 8 anesthesiologists, 5 surgeons, 6 nurses, and 18 patients. Facilitators identified across the different medical professions were (1) feasibility and alignment with current practice, (2) standardization of care, (3) smallness of community, (4) good teamwork and communication, and (5) caring for patients. The barriers were (1) difficulty in adapting to change, (2) lack of coordination between different departments, (3) special needs of a highly comorbid and socioeconomically disadvantaged patient population, (4) limited resources, and (5) rotating residents. Facilitators identified by the patients were (1) welcoming a speedy recovery, (2) being well-cared for and satisfied with treatment, (3) adequate social support, (4) welcoming early mobilization, and (5) effective pain management. The barriers were (1) lack of quiet and private space, (2) need for more patient education and counseling, and (3) unforeseen complications. CONCLUSION: Although limited hospital resources are perceived as a barrier to ERAS implementation at a safety-net hospital, there is strong support for such pathways and multiple factors were identified that may facilitate change. Inclusion of patient perspectives is critical to identifying challenges and facilitators to implementing ERAS changes focused on optimizing patient perioperative health and outcomes.

Treatment delays of colon cancer in a safety-net hospital system.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in colon cancer survival have been reported to result from advanced stage at diagnosis and delayed therapy. We hypothesized that delays in treatment among medically underserved patients occur as a result of system-level barriers in a safety-net hospital system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review and analysis of colon cancer patients treated in a large safety-net hospital system between May 2008 and May 2012. Data were collected on demographics, stage at diagnosis, time to surgery, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and vital status. Regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of delays and failure to receive therapy. RESULTS: Of 248 patients treated for colon cancer, 56% (n = 140) had advanced disease at the time of presentation; furthermore, 29.1% of all colectomies for colon cancer were performed on an urgent or emergent basis. Thirty-six patients with stage III and IV disease did not receive chemotherapy (26%). Race, age, gender, and hospice care did not predict receipt of chemotherapy or delays to treatment. Patients with stage I colon cancer had a significantly longer interval between diagnosis and elective surgery when compared with patients with stage II, III, and IV colon cancer, with only 10% (n = 3) undergoing resection sooner than 6 wk after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: One in three patients diagnosed with colon cancer in a large safety-net hospital system require urgent or emergent surgery, and one in two present with advanced disease. Reducing disparities should focus on earlier diagnosis of colon cancer and improving access to surgical specialists.

What is the quality of reporting of studies of interventions to increase compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis?

BACKGROUND: Despite studies reporting successful interventions to increase antibiotic prophylaxis compliance, surgical site infections remain a significant problem. The reasons for this lack of improvement are unknown. This review evaluates the internal and external validity of quality improvement studies of interventions to increase surgical antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. STUDY DESIGN: Three investigators independently performed systematic literature searches and selected eligible studies that evaluated interventions to improve perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis timing, type, and/or discontinuation. Studies published before the Surgical Infection Prevention project inception in 2002 were excluded. Each study was assessed based on modified criteria for evaluating quality improvement studies (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) and for facilitating implementation of evidence into practice (Reach-Efficacy-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance). RESULTS: Forty-six articles met inclusion criteria; 93% reported improvement in antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. Surgical site infections were evaluated in 50% of studies and 65% reported an improvement. Less than 5% of studies used randomization, allocation concealment, or blinding. Nine percent of studies described efforts to minimize bias in the design results and analysis and 13% described a sample size calculation. Approximately one-third of studies described participant adoption of the intervention (26%), factors affecting generalizability (33%), or implementation barriers (37%). Most studies (80%) used multiple interventions; no single intervention was associated with change in compliance. Studies with the lowest baseline compliance showed the greatest improvement, regardless of the intervention(s). CONCLUSIONS: The methodology and reporting of quality improvement studies on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is suboptimal, and factors that would improve generalizability of successful intervention implementation are infrequently reported. Clinicians should use caution in applying the results of these studies to their general practice.

Interaction between age and race alters predicted survival in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in colorectal cancer persist. Late stage at presentation and lack of stage-specific treatment may be contributing factors. We sought to evaluate the magnitude of disparity remaining after accounting for gender, stage, and treatment using predicted survival models. METHODS: We used institutional tumor registries from a public health system (two hospitals) and a not-for-profit health system (nine hospitals) from 1995 to 2011. Demographics, stage at diagnosis, treatment, and survival were recorded. Hazard ratios (HRs) and predicted HRs were determined by Cox regression and postestimation analyses. RESULTS: There were 6,990 patients: 55.7 % white, 23.6 % African American, 15.1 % Hispanic, and 5.6 % Asian/other. Predictors of survival were surgery (HR 0.57, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.70), chemotherapy (HR 0.7, 95 % CI 0.62-0.79), female gender (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.83-0.90), age (HR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.03-1.05), and African American race (HR 3.6, 95 % CI 1.5-8.4). Balancing for stage, gender, and treatment reduced the predicted HRs for African Americans by 28 % and Hispanics by 17 %. In this model, African American and Hispanics still had the worst predicted HRs at younger ages, but whites had the worst predicted HR after age 75. CONCLUSIONS: Gender, stage, and treatment partially accounted for worsened survival in African Americans and Hispanics at all ages. At younger ages, race-related disparities remained which may reflect tumor biology or other unknown factors. Once gender, stage, and treatment are balanced at older ages, the increased mortality observed in whites may be due to factors such as comorbidities. Further system- and patient-level study is needed to investigate reasons for colorectal cancer survival disparities.

Should perioperative supplemental oxygen be routinely recommended for surgery patients? A Bayesian meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to use updated data and Bayesian methods to evaluate the effectiveness of hyperoxia to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) and/or mortality in both colorectal and all surgery patients. Because few trials assessed potential harms of hyperoxia, hazards were not included. BACKGROUND: Use of hyperoxia to reduce SSIs is controversial. Three recent meta-analyses have had conflicting conclusions. METHODS: A systematic literature search and review were performed. Traditional fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses and Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to evaluate SSIs and mortality. RESULTS: Traditional meta-analysis yielded a relative risk of an SSI with hyperoxia among all surgery patients of 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.97] and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.61-1.16) for the fixed-effect and random-effect models, respectively. The probabilities of any risk reduction in SSIs among all surgery patients were 77%, 81%, and 83% for skeptical, neutral, and enthusiastic priors. The subset analysis of colorectal surgery patients increased the probabilities to 86%, 89%, and 92%. The probabilities of at least a 10% reduction were 57%, 62%, and 68% for all surgery patients and 71%, 75%, and 80% among the colorectal surgery subset. CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderately high probability of a benefit to hyperoxia in reducing SSIs in colorectal surgery patients; however, the magnitude of benefit is relatively small and might not exceed treatment hazards. Further studies should focus on generalizability to other patient populations or on treatment hazards and other outcomes.

Revisiting the effectiveness of interventions to decrease surgical site infections in colorectal surgery: A Bayesian perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for interventions to decrease surgical site infections (SSIs) in colorectal operations using Bayesian meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Interventions other than appropriate administration of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent SSIs have not been adopted widely, in part because of lack of recommendations for these interventions based on traditional meta-analyses. Bayesian methods can provide probabilities of specific thresholds of benefit, which may be more useful in guiding clinical decision making. We hypothesized that Bayesian meta-analytic methods would complement the interpretation of traditional analyses regarding the effectiveness of interventions to decrease SSIs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane database for reviews of interventions to decrease SSIs after colorectal surgery other than prophylactic antibiotics. Traditional and Bayesian meta-analyses were performed using RevMan (Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark) and WinBUGS (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK). Bayesian posterior probabilities of any benefit, defined as a relative risk of <1, were calculated using skeptical, neutral, and enthusiastic prior probabilities. Probabilities were also calculated that interventions decreased SSIs by ≥10%, and ≥20% using neutral prior probability distributions. RESULTS: A total of 9 Cochrane reviews met the search criteria. Using traditional meta-analysis methods, only laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction in SSIs and a recommendation for use of the intervention. Using Bayesian analysis, several interventions that did not result in "significant" decreases in SSIs using traditional analytic methods had a >85% probability of benefit. Also, nonuse of 2 interventions (mechanical bowel preparation and adhesive drapes) had a high probability of decreasing SSIs compared with their use. CONCLUSION: Bayesian probabilities and traditional point estimates of treatment effect yield similar information in terms of potential effectiveness. Bayesian meta-analysis, however, provides complementary information on the probability of a large magnitude of effect. The clinical impact of using Bayesian methods to inform decisions about which interventions to institute first or which interventions to combine requires further study.

Cytomegalovirus enteritis manifesting as recurrent bowel obstruction and jejunal perforation in patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: rare report of survival and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) enteritis presenting with perforation in the setting of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) represents a particularly deadly combination. METHODS: Case report and review of the pertinent literature. CASE REPORT: The authors report a patient with AIDS and CMV enteritis presenting as recurrent small-bowel obstruction and leading to perforation of the jejunum with subsequent survival. CONCLUSION: This is believed to represent the second case in the English-language literature of survival after CMV-induced small intestinal perforation in a patient with AIDS.