Socially vulnerable patients are more likely to fail outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic cholelithiasis is a common surgical problem, with many patients requiring multiple gallstone-related emergency department (ED) visits before cholecystectomy. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) identifies vulnerable patient populations. This study aimed to assess the association between social vulnerability and outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis-related ED visits were identified within our health system from 2016 to 2022. Clinical outcomes data were merged with SVI census track data, which consist of 4 SVI subthemes (socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation). Multivariate analysis was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47,292 patients presented to the ED with symptomatic cholelithiasis, of which 6103 patients (13.3 %) resided in vulnerable census tract regions. Of these patients, 13,795 (29.2 %) underwent immediate cholecystectomy with a mean time to surgery of 35.1 h, 8250 (17.4 %) underwent elective cholecystectomy at a mean of 40.6 days from the initial ED visit, and 2924 (6.2 %) failed outpatient management and returned 1.26 times (range, 1-11) to the ED with recurrent biliary-related pain. Multivariate analysis found social vulnerability subthemes of socioeconomic status (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95 % CI, 1.09-1.52) and racial and ethnic minority status (OR, 2.41; 95 % CI, 2.05-2.83) to be associated with failure of outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis. CONCLUSION: Socially vulnerable patients are more likely to return to the ED with symptomatic cholelithiasis. Policies to support this vulnerable population in the outpatient setting with timely follow-up and elective cholecystectomy can help reduce delays in care and overutilization of ED resources.

Colorectal Anastomosis Versus Colostomy Creation in High MELD Patients: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liver failure patients are at increased risk of surgical complications. The decision to perform a colonic anastomosis vs a colostomy in urgent colorectal surgery remains unclear. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery between 2016 and 2018. MELD score was calculated and stratified into 3 groups. Subgroup analysis of the high-MELD group was performed. RESULTS: Higher MELD scores were associated with significantly higher mortality. Colostomy formation was consistent between intermediate and high-MELD groups. In high-MELD patients, colonic anastomosis was associated with higher mortality than those receiving colostomy (41.1% vs 28.4%, P < .001). Patients receiving colostomy had higher rates of wound complications, but lower rates of return to OR and non-wound complications. Regression analysis revealed that colostomy formation remained an independent predictor of survival (mortality OR = .594, P < .001). DISCUSSION: High-MELD patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery have increased risk of complications such as mortality. Patients in this group receiving an anastomosis have increased complications and mortality, and may benefit from colostomy formation.

To close or not to close? Wound management in emergent colorectal surgery, an EAST multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the clinical impact of wound management technique on surgical site infection (SSI), hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality in emergent colorectal surgery. METHODS: A prospective observational study (2021-2023) of urgent or emergent colorectal surgery patients at 15 institutions was conducted. Pediatric patients and traumatic colorectal injuries were excluded. Patients were classified by wound closure technique: skin closed (SC), skin loosely closed (SLC), or skin open (SO). Primary outcomes were SSI, hospital LOS, and in-hospital mortality rates. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of wound closure on outcomes after controlling for demographics, patient characteristics, intensive care unit admission, vasopressor use, procedure details, and wound class. A priori power analysis indicated that 138 patients per group were required to detect a 10% difference in mortality rates. RESULTS: In total, 557 patients were included (SC, n = 262; SLC, n = 124; SO, n = 171). Statistically significant differences in body mass index, race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologist scores, EBL, intensive care unit admission, vasopressor therapy, procedure details, and wound class were observed across groups. Overall, average LOS was 16.9 ± 16.4 days, and rates of in-hospital mortality and SSI were 7.9% and 18.5%, respectively, with the lowest rates observed in the SC group. After risk adjustment, SO was associated with increased risk of mortality (OR, 3.003; p = 0.028) in comparison with the SC group. Skin loosely closed was associated with increased risk of superficial SSI (OR, 3.439; p = 0.014), after risk adjustment. CONCLUSION: When compared with the SC group, the SO group was associated with mortality but comparable when considering all other outcomes, while the SLC was associated with increased superficial SSI. Complete skin closure may be a viable wound management technique in emergent colorectal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Open and Closed Approaches to Skin Closure After Nonelective Open Colorectal Operations.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal wound management strategies to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) in nonelective open colorectal surgery (NOCS) remain controversial and variable. Our aim is to describe SSI and other 30-day outcome measures among patients with varying wound management techniques undergoing NOCS. METHODS: All NOCS patients were extracted from the 2016 to 2018 ACS-NSQIP database. Outcomes of patients managed with all layers closed (ALC) were compared to patients managed with skin open (SO), using propensity score matching (PSM) to control for significant confounding risk factors for SSI. RESULTS: A total of 40,820 patients were included; 4622 patients managed with SO and 36,198 managed with ALC. Patients in the SO group were more likely to have a history of hypertension, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, obesity, and sepsis on presentation (P < .001). After PSM, no differences in risk factors remained; 4622 and 4344 patients were included in the SO and ALC cohorts, respectively. While ALC patients experienced a higher rate of superficial SSI (1.4% vs 7.3%, P < .001) and any wound complications (6.8% vs 10.8%, P < .001), the SO group had higher wound dehiscence (4.4% vs 2.8%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in deep wound infection. The SO group had longer average length of stay (14.7 vs 13.1 days, P < .001), higher non-wound-related complications, discharge to SNF, and in-hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: Significant differences in SSI rates among NOCS patients with differing wound management techniques were observed. More notably, other important quality measures, such as length of stay, disposition, mortality, and non-wound-related complications were also significantly impacted by wound management strategy.

Interfacility Transfer for Nonelective Cholecystectomy in High MELD Patients: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Interfacility transfer to a referral center is often considered for patients with liver disease undergoing nonelective cholecystectomy given management complexities and perioperative risk. We sought to determine the association between the Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, transfer frequency, and outcomes in those patients using a national database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP participant use files were queried for nonelective open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2016 to 2018. Patients were grouped according to low (6-11), intermediate (12-18), or high (>18) MELD. In the high MELD group, patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between transferred and nontransferred patients and multivariate regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of outcomes. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and 30-d reoperation and readmission. RESULTS: 30,171 subjects were included. Transfer was more likely as MELD increased (19.5% high versus 12.1% low, P < 0.001). High MELD patients had increased LOS, reoperation, readmission, and mortality rates compared to low MELD. In high MELD patients (n = 1016), those transferred were more likely older, white, obese, and septic. Transferred patients had increased mortality (7.6% versus 4.2%, P = 0.044), LOS, reoperation, and complications. After controlling for differences between transferred and nontransferred patients, transfer status was not independently associated with mortality (OR = 1.593, P = 0.177), postoperative complications or LOS, but was associated with increased risk for reoperation. Sepsis and laparoscopic surgery were independently associated with higher and lower mortality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer status is not independently associated with mortality, postoperative complications, or prolonged LOS, suggesting patients with advanced liver disease undergoing acute cholecystectomy may not benefit from interfacility transfer.

Does Wound Management Technique Impact Surgical Site Infection in Open Emergency Colon Procedures?

BACKGROUND: Emergency open large bowel procedures have higher rates of intraoperative contamination and increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI) than elective colon surgeries. Several wound management strategies have been proposed, such as vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy and delayed primary closure to improve results. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between wound management technique and SSI and other quality measures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing open emergency colon surgery from January 2017 to December 2018 by our acute care surgery service. The primary outcome measure was incidence of SSI. Secondary outcome measures included length of stay, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 62.8 years and mean BMI of 28.8. Overall incidence of SSI was 19.5%. There was no significant difference in incidence of SSI, reoperation, or 30-day readmission when stratifying by wound management technique or procedure type after controlling for confounding variables. Notably, patients managed with VAC therapy had a statistically significant longer average length of stay and higher total postoperative antibiotic days (both P = .001) than other techniques. DISCUSSION: We conclude from our data that wound management technique does not seem to influence rate of SSI, but wound management may influence length of stay or antibiotic duration. These findings suggest that there may not be an advantage to alternative methods of wound management in this high-risk population. Further prospective evaluation should be performed to confirm these findings.

How Does a New General Surgery Residency Program's Junior Residents Impact Hospital Efficiency and Productivity?

OBJECTIVE: The general surgery workforce deficit is projected to grow to 15% to 21% by 2050. An estimated 6.6% increase to existing general surgery residency (GSR) programs is needed to meet this shortfall. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a new GSR program on efficiency and productivity at a regional healthcare center. STUDY DESIGN: An institutional database was retrospectively queried for all GSR related procedures between July 2015 and June 2018. Procedures done prior to GSR initiation (pre-GSR) were compared to those done after (post-GSR). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: We reviewed 10,617 procedures (6365 pre-GSR vs. 4252 post-GSR). Patients had lower preoperative Hierarchical Condition Category scores in the post-GSR group (0.71 vs. 0.58, p < 0.01). Operative times increased post-GSR (101.7 vs. 109.1 minutes, p < 0.01), but length of stay decreased (6.4 vs. 5.5 days, p = 0.01). Thirty-day readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.11) were comparable, but reoperations significantly decreased post-GSR (10.1% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.01). Average hospital costs remained unchanged ($10,765 vs. $10,140, p = 0.12). Multivariate analysis revealed no statistical difference in operative times, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and hospital costs between the 2 groups. Subset analysis based on surgical service also showed no statistical difference. Productivity increased on the general surgery service post-GSR (7.1 vs. 7.8 cases per day, p = 0.02). Patient satisfaction increased post-GSR (76% vs. 81%, p = 0.31), but without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The initiation of a new GSR program did not negatively impact operative times, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, hospital costs, case volume, or patient satisfaction.

Is Opioid Prescribing Driving Trauma Recidivism or Is Trauma Driving Opioid Use?

In the past 30 years, opioid prescription rates have quadrupled and hospital admissions for overdose are rising. Previous studies have focused on alcohol use and trauma recidivism, however rarely evaluating recidivism and opioid use. We hypothesized there is an association between opioid use and trauma recidivism. This is a retrospective review of patients with multiple admissions for traumatic injury. Demographics, opioid toxicology screen (TS) results, and injury characteristics were collected. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-squared and Poisson regression models. One thousand six hundred forty-nine patients (age ≥18 years) had multiple trauma admissions. Seven hundred nine patients had TS data for both admissions. Thirty-one per cent (218) were TS positive on the 1st admission compared with 34 per cent (244) on their 2nd admission. Fifty-five per cent of patients who were TS positive on the 1st admission were positive on their 2nd admission, whereas 25 per cent who were TS negative on the 1st admission were subsequently positive on their 2nd admission (P < 0.0001). Patients who were TS positive on the subsequent admission were less severely injured than TS negative patients (Injury Severity Score > 15, 26.3% vs 22.3%, P = 0.04). The only significant risk factor for being TS positive on the 2nd admission was being TS positive on the 1st admission (relative risk = 2.18, P < 0.001). A previous history of opioid use is the strongest predictor of recurrent use in recidivists.

Traumatic Brain Injury Advances.

There have been many recent advances in the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Research regarding established and novel therapies is ongoing. Future research must not only focus on development of new strategies but determine the long-term benefits or disadvantages of current strategies. In addition, the impact of these advances on varying severities of brain injury must not be ignored. It is hoped that future research strategies in TBI will prioritize large-scale trials using common data elements to develop large registries and databases, and leverage international collaborations.