Ketamine For Acute Pain After Trauma (KAPT): A Pragmatic, Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-narcotic intravenous medications may be a beneficial adjunct to oral multimodal pain regimens (MMPRs) which reduce but do not eliminate opioid exposure and prescribing after trauma. We hypothesized that the addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion (KI) to a standardized oral MMPR reduces inpatient opioid exposure. METHODS: Eligible adult trauma patients admitted to the intermediate or intensive care unit were randomized upon admission to our institutional MMPR per usual care (UC) or UC plus sub-dissociative KI for 24 to 72 hours after arrival. The primary outcome was morphine milligram equivalents per day (MME/d) and secondary outcomes included total MME, discharge with an opioid prescription (OP%), and rates of ketamine side effects. Bayesian posterior probabilities (pp) were calculated using neutral priors. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the final analysis with 144 randomized to KI and 156 to UC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The injury severity scores for KI were 19 [14, 29] versus UC 22 [14, 29]. The KI group had a lower rate of long-bone fracture (37% versus 49%) and laparotomy (16% versus 24%). Patients receiving KI had an absolute reduction of 7 MME/day, 96 total MME, and 5% in OP%. Additionally, KI had a relative risk (RR) reduction of 19% in MME/day (RR 0.81 [0.69 - 0.95], pp = 99%), 20% in total MME (RR 0.80 [0.64, 0.99], pp = 98%), and 8% in OP% (RR 0.92 [0.76, 1.11], pp = 81%). The KI group had a higher rate of delirium (11% versus 6%); however, rates of other side effects such as arrythmias and unplanned intubations were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion to an oral MMPR resulted in a decrease in opioid exposure in severely injured patients. Sub-dissociative ketamine infusions can be used as a safe adjunct to decrease opioid exposure in monitored settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I; Therapeutic/Care Management.

Management of Gallstone Pancreatitis: A Review.

Importance: Gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) is the leading cause of acute pancreatitis, accounting for approximately 50% of cases. Without appropriate and timely treatment, patients are at increased risk of disease progression and recurrence. While there is increasing consensus among guidelines for the management of mild GSP, adherence to these guidelines remains poor. In addition, there is minimal evidence to guide clinicians in the treatment of moderately severe and severe pancreatitis. Observations: The management of GSP continues to evolve and is dependent on severity of acute pancreatitis and concomitant biliary diagnoses. Across the spectrum of severity, there is evidence that goal-directed, moderate fluid resuscitation decreases the risk of fluid overload and mortality compared with aggressive resuscitation. Patients with isolated, mild GSP should undergo same-admission cholecystectomy; early cholecystectomy within 48 hours of admission has been supported by several randomized clinical trials. Cholecystectomy should be delayed for patients with severe disease; for severe and moderately severe disease, the optimal timing remains unclear. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is only useful for patients with suspected cholangitis or biliary obstruction, although the concomitance of these conditions in patients with GSP is rare. Modality of evaluation of the common bile duct to rule out concomitant choledocholithiasis varies and should be tailored to level of concern based on objective measures, such as laboratory results and imaging findings. Among these modalities, intraoperative cholangiography is associated with reduced length of stay and decreased use of ERCP. However, the benefit of routine intraoperative cholangiography remains in question. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment of GSP is dependent on disease severity, which can be difficult to assess. A comprehensive review of clinically relevant evidence and recommendations on GSP severity grading, fluid resuscitation, timing of cholecystectomy, need for ERCP, and evaluation and management of persistent choledocholithiasis can help guide clinicians in diagnosis and management.

Impact of COVID status and blood group on complications in patients in hemorrhagic shock.

Objective: Among critically injured patients of various blood groups, we sought to compare survival and complication rates between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative cohorts. Background: SARS-CoV-2 infections have been shown to cause endothelial injury and dysfunctional coagulation. We hypothesized that, among patients with trauma in hemorrhagic shock, COVID-19-positive status would be associated with increased mortality and inpatient complications. As a secondary hypothesis, we suspected group O patients with COVID-19 would experience fewer complications than non-group O patients with COVID-19. Methods: We evaluated all trauma patients admitted 4/2020-7/2020. Patients 16 years or older were included if they presented in hemorrhagic shock and received emergency release blood products. Patients were dichotomized by COVID-19 testing and then divided by blood groups. Results: 3281 patients with trauma were evaluated, and 417 met criteria for analysis. Seven percent (29) of patients were COVID-19 positive; 388 were COVID-19 negative. COVID-19-positive patients experienced higher complication rates than the COVID-19-negative cohort, including acute kidney injury, pneumonia, sepsis, venous thromboembolism, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Univariate analysis by blood groups demonstrated that survival for COVID-19-positive group O patients was similar to that of COVID-19-negative patients (79 vs 78%). However, COVID-19-positive non-group O patients had a significantly lower survival (38%). Controlling for age, sex and Injury Severity Score, COVID-19-positive patients had a greater than 70% decreased odds of survival (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.81; p=0.019). Conclusions: COVID-19 status is associated with increased major complications and 70% decreased odds of survival in this group of patients with trauma. However, among patients with COVID-19, blood group O was associated with twofold increased survival over other blood groups. This survival rate was similar to that of patients without COVID-19.

Identifying Age-Specific Risk Factors for Poor Outcomes After Trauma With Machine Learning.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification for poor outcomes is not currently age-specific. Risk stratification of older patients based on observational cohorts primarily composed of young patients may result in suboptimal clinical care and inaccurate quality benchmarking. We assessed two hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that risk factors for poor outcomes after trauma are age-dependent and, second, that the relative importance of various risk factors are also age-dependent. METHODS: A cohort study of severely injured adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit 2014-2018 was performed using trauma registry data. Random forest algorithms predicting poor outcomes (death or complication) were built and validated using three cohorts: (1) patients of all ages, (2) younger patients, and (3) older patients. Older patients were defined as aged 55 y or more to maintain consistency with prior trauma literature. Complications assessed included acute renal failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac arrest, unplanned intubation, unplanned intensive care unit admission, and unplanned return to the operating room, as defined by the trauma quality improvement program. Mean decrease in model accuracy (MDA), if each variable was removed and scaled to a Z-score, was calculated. MDA change ≥4 standard deviations between age cohorts was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 5489 patients, 25% were older. Poor outcomes occurred in 12% of younger and 33% of older patients. Head injury was the most important predictor of poor outcome in all cohorts. In the full cohort, age was the most important predictor of poor outcomes after head injury. Within age cohorts, the most important predictors of poor outcomes, after head injury, were surgery requirement in younger patients and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale in older patients. Compared to younger patients, head injury and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale had the greatest increase in importance for older patients, while systolic blood pressure had the greatest decrease in importance. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised machine learning identified differences in risk factors and their relative associations with poor outcomes based on age. Age-specific models may improve hospital benchmarking and identify quality improvement targets for older trauma patients.

Presentation Acuity and Surgical Outcomes for Patients With Health Insurance Living in Highly Deprived Neighborhoods.

Importance: Insurance coverage expansion has been proposed as a solution to improving health disparities, but insurance expansion alone may be insufficient to alleviate care access barriers. Objective: To assess the association of Area Deprivation Index (ADI) with postsurgical textbook outcomes (TO) and presentation acuity for individuals with private insurance or Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) merged with electronic health record data from 3 academic health care systems. Data were analyzed from June 2022 to August 2023. Exposure: Living in a neighborhood with an ADI greater than 85. Main Outcomes and Measures: TO, defined as absence of unplanned reoperations, Clavien-Dindo grade 4 complications, mortality, emergency department visits/observation stays, and readmissions, and presentation acuity, defined as having preoperative acute serious conditions (PASC) and urgent or emergent cases. Results: Among a cohort of 29 924 patients, the mean (SD) age was 60.6 (15.6) years; 16 424 (54.9%) were female, and 13 500 (45.1) were male. A total of 14 306 patients had private insurance and 15 618 had Medicare. Patients in highly deprived neighborhoods (5536 patients [18.5%]), with an ADI greater than 85, had lower/worse odds of TO in both the private insurance group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P = .04) and Medicare group (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00; P = .04) and higher odds of PASC and urgent or emergent cases. The association of ADIs greater than 85 with TO lost significance after adjusting for PASC and urgent/emergent cases. Differences in the probability of TO between the lowest-risk (ADI ≤85, no PASC, and elective surgery) and highest-risk (ADI >85, PASC, and urgent/emergent surgery) scenarios stratified by frailty were highest for very frail patients (Risk Analysis Index ≥40) with differences of 40.2% and 43.1% for those with private insurance and Medicare, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that patients living in highly deprived neighborhoods had lower/worse odds of TO and higher presentation acuity despite having private insurance or Medicare. These findings suggest that insurance coverage expansion alone is insufficient to overcome health care disparities, possibly due to persistent barriers to preventive care and other complex causes of health inequities.

Impact of Intra-Operative Shock and Resuscitation on Surgical Site Infections After Trauma Laparotomy.

Background: Patients undergoing trauma laparotomy experience high rates of surgical site infection (SSI). Although intra-operative shock is a likely contributor to SSI risk, little is known about the relation between shock, intra-operative restoration of physiologic normalcy, and SSI development. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of trauma patients who underwent emergent definitive laparotomy was performed. Using shock index and base excess at the beginning and end of laparotomy, patients were classified as normal, persistent shock, resuscitated, or new shock. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of organ/space SSI, superficial/deep SSI, and any SSI. Results: Of 1,191 included patients, 600 (50%) were categorized as no shock, 248 (21%) as resuscitated, 109 (9%) as new shock, and 236 (20%) as persistent shock, with incidence of any SSI as 51 (9%), 28 (11%), 26 (24%), and 32 (14%), respectively. These rates were similar in organ/space and superficial/deep SSIs. On multivariable analysis, resuscitated, new shock, and persistent shock were associated with increased odds of organ/space SSI (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.5; p < 0.001) and any SSI (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; p < 0.001), but no increased risk of superficial/deep SSI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.6; p = 0.331). Conclusions: Although the trajectory of physiologic status influenced SSI, the presence of shock at any time during trauma laparotomy, regardless of restoration of physiologic normalcy, was associated with increased odds of SSI. Further investigation is warranted to determine the relation between peri-operative shock and SSI in trauma patients.

A Surgical Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Reveals Complex Relationships Between Race/Ethnicity, Insurance Type, and Neighborhood Deprivation.

OBJECTIVE: Develop an ordinal Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) for surgical outcomes to examine complex associations of Social Determinants of Health. BACKGROUND: Studies focused on single or binary composite outcomes may not detect health disparities. METHODS: Three health care system cohort study using NSQIP (2013-2019) linked with EHR and risk-adjusted for frailty, preoperative acute serious conditions (PASC), case status and operative stress assessing associations of multilevel Social Determinants of Health of race/ethnicity, insurance type (Private 13,957; Medicare 15,198; Medicaid 2835; Uninsured 2963) and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) on DOOR and the binary Textbook Outcomes (TO). RESULTS: Patients living in highly deprived neighborhoods (ADI>85) had higher odds of PASC [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.13, CI=1.02-1.25, P <0.001] and urgent/emergent cases (aOR=1.23, CI=1.16-1.31, P <0.001). Increased odds of higher/less desirable DOOR scores were associated with patients identifying as Black versus White and on Medicare, Medicaid or Uninsured versus Private insurance. Patients with ADI>85 had lower odds of TO (aOR=0.91, CI=0.85-0.97, P =0.006) until adjusting for insurance. In contrast, patients with ADI>85 had increased odds of higher DOOR (aOR=1.07, CI=1.01-1.14, P <0.021) after adjusting for insurance but similar odds after adjusting for PASC and urgent/emergent cases. CONCLUSIONS: DOOR revealed complex interactions between race/ethnicity, insurance type and neighborhood deprivation. ADI>85 was associated with higher odds of worse DOOR outcomes while TO failed to capture the effect of ADI. Our results suggest that presentation acuity is a critical determinant of worse outcomes in patients in highly deprived neighborhoods and without insurance. Including risk adjustment for living in deprived neighborhoods and urgent/emergent surgeries could improve the accuracy of quality metrics.

We are moving the needle: Improving racial disparities in immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Although racial disparities in receipt of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) have been previously reported, prior studies may not have fully assessed the impact of recent advocacy efforts as healthcare disparities gain increased national attention. The aim of this study is to assess more recent racial differences and annual trends in receiving IBR. METHODS: Using the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database, black or white women over 18 years who underwent mastectomy from 2012 to 2021 were included. IBR was defined by undergoing mastectomy with breast reconstruction during the same anesthetic event. Propensity score analysis was utilized to balance variables between black and white patients. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the effect of race on the odds of receiving IBR. RESULTS: The annual percentage of white patients receiving IBR remained stable at around 50% throughout the study period. The annual percentage of black patients receiving IBR increased from 34% in 2012 to 49% in 2021. Compared with white patients, black patients had lower odds of receiving IBR during the entire study period (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.67). When assessing annual trends, black patients were less likely to receive IBR each year from 2012 to 2017. By 2021, both races had similar odds of IBR. CONCLUSIONS: Although racial disparities in IBR have been longstanding, this study demonstrates that the racial gap appears to be closing. This may be because of increased awareness of racial disparities and their impact on patient outcomes.

Empiric Cryoprecipitate Transfusion in Patients with Severe Hemorrhage: Results from the US Experience in the International CRYOSTAT-2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypofibrinogenemia has been shown to predict massive transfusion and is associated with higher mortality in severely injured patients. However, the role of empiric fibrinogen replacement in bleeding trauma patients remains controversial. We sought to determine the effect of empiric cryoprecipitate as an adjunct to a balanced transfusion strategy (1:1:1). STUDY DESIGN: This study is a subanalysis of patients treated at the single US trauma center in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Trauma patients (more than 15 years) were eligible if they had evidence of active hemorrhage requiring emergent surgery or interventional radiology, massive transfusion protocol (MTP) activation, and received at least 1 unit of blood. Transfer patients, those with injuries incompatible with life, or those injured more than 3 hours earlier were excluded. Patients were randomized to standard MTP (STANDARD) or MTP plus 3 pools of cryoprecipitate (CRYO). Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were transfusion requirements, intraoperative and postoperative coagulation laboratory values, and quality-of-life measures (Glasgow outcome score-extended). RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (23 in the CRYO group and 26 in the STANDARD group) were enrolled between May 2021 and October 2021. Time to randomization was similar between groups (14 vs 24 minutes, p = 0.676). Median time to cryoprecipitate was 41 minutes (interquartile range 37 to 48). There were no differences in demographics, arrival physiology, laboratory values, or injury severity. Intraoperative and ICU thrombelastography values, including functional fibrinogen, were similar between groups. There was no benefit to CRYO with respect to post-emergency department transfusions (intraoperative and ICU through 24 hours), complications, Glasgow outcome score, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of severely injured, bleeding trauma patients, empiric cryoprecipitate did not improve survival or reduce transfusion requirements. Cryoprecipitate should continue as an "on-demand" addition to a balanced transfusion strategy, guided by laboratory values and should not be given empirically.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Severe Abdominal Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the Damage Control Laparotomy Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following abdominal trauma. We hypothesized that patients undergoing definitive laparotomy (DEF) would have better PROs compared to those treated with damage control laparotomy (DCL). METHODS: The DCL Trial randomized DEF versus DCL in abdominal trauma. PROs were measured using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D) questionnaire at discharge and six months postdischarge (1 = perfect health, 0 = death, and <0 = worse than death) and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist-Civilian. Unadjusted Bayesian analysis with a neutral prior was used to assess the posterior probability of achieving minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Of 39 randomized patients (21 DEF versus 18 DCL), 8 patients died (7 DEF versus 1 DCL). Of those who survived, 28 completed the EQ-5D at discharge (12 DEF versus 16 DCL) and 25 at 6 mo (12 DEF versus 13 DCL). Most patients were male (79%) with a median age of 30 (interquartile range (IQR) 21-42), suffered blunt injury (56%), and were severely injured (median injury severity score 33, IQR 21 - 42). Median EQ-5D value at discharge was 0.20 (IQR 0.06 - 0.52) DEF versus 0.31 (IQR -0.03 - 0.43) DCL, and at six months 0.51 (IQR 0.30 - 0.74) DEF versus 0.50 (IQR 0.28 - 0.84) DCL. The posterior probability of minimal clinically important difference DEF versus DCL at discharge and six months was 16% and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Functional deficits for trauma patients persist beyond the acute setting regardless of laparotomy status. These deficits warrant longitudinal studies to better inform patients on recovery expectations.

Poor Oral Health in Trauma Intensive Care Unit Patients: Application of a Novel Oral Health Score.

Background: Although oral hygiene in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to reduce hospital-associated infections, baseline and progressive oral health are often not reported because of lack of a standardized tool. The Oral Health Risk Assessment Value Index (OHRAVI) is a comprehensive oral assessment validated by dental providers. This study hypothesizes that non-dental providers can use OHRAVI in trauma ICU patients with minimal training and acceptable inter-rater reliability (IRR). Patients and Methods: Dentulous adult patients in the ICU at a level 1 trauma center were scored, excluding those with severe orofacial trauma. The eight categories of the OHRAVI were scored 0 to 3 (best to worst) with summed total and index (average) score. Index scores 1 or less need routine oral care; greater than 1-2 require moderate care; and greater than 2-3 require extensive oromaxillofacial care. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by two to three raters with Krippendorff's α (≥0.80 for good and ≥0.667 for acceptable). Results: Eighty-four ratings were completed across 34 patients, with 16 patients (47%) scored by all three raters. Ten patients (29%) had an index score <1. The average index score for patients was 1.28 (median, 1.34; range, 0.63-2). Krippendorff's α for index score was 0.86. For individual categories, α ranged from 0.44 to 1, with six of the eight categories achieving an α ≥ 0.667. Conclusions: With minimal training, non-dental providers were able to use OHRAVI with a good IRR for index score and an acceptable/good IRR for most individual categories. This novel, simple, comprehensive oral health score could help standardize oral assessment and facilitate future studies of peri-operative oral hygiene interventions.

Independent Associations of Neighborhood Deprivation and Patient-level Social Determinants of Health with Textbook Outcomes after Inpatient Surgery.

Objective: Assess associations of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) using Area Deprivation Index (ADI), race/ethnicity and insurance type with Textbook Outcomes (TO). Summary Background Data: Individual- and contextual-level SDoH affect health outcomes, but only one SDoH level is usually included. Methods: Three healthcare system cohort study using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) linked with ADI risk-adjusted for frailty, case status and operative stress examining TO/TO components (unplanned reoperations, complications, mortality, Emergency Department/Observation Stays and readmissions). Results: Cohort (34,251 cases) mean age 58.3 [SD=16.0], 54.8% females, 14.1% Hispanics, 11.6% Non-Hispanic Blacks, 21.6% with ADI>85, and 81.8% TO. Racial and ethnic minorities, non-Private insurance, and ADI>85 patients had increased odds of urgent/emergent surgeries (aORs range: 1.17-2.83, all P<.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients, ADI>85 and non-Private insurances had lower TO odds (aORs range: 0.55-0.93, all P<.04), but ADI>85 lost significance after including case status. Urgent/emergent versus elective had lower TO odds (aOR=0.51, P<.001). ADI>85 patients had higher complication and mortality odds. Estimated reduction in TO probability was 9.9% (CI=7.2%-12.6%) for urgent/emergent cases, 7.0% (CI=4.6%-9.3%) for Medicaid, and 1.6% (CI=0.2%-3.0%) for non-Hispanic Black patients. TO probability difference for lowest-risk (White-Private-ADI≤85-elective) to highest-risk (Black-Medicaid-ADI>85-urgent/emergent) was 29.8% for very frail patients. Conclusion: Multi-level SDoH had independent effects on TO, predominately affecting outcomes through increased rates/odds of urgent/emergent surgeries driving complications and worse outcomes. Lowest-risk versus highest-risk scenarios demonstrated the magnitude of intersecting SDoH variables. Combination of insurance type and ADI should be used to identify high-risk patients to redesign care pathways to improve outcomes. Risk adjustment including contextual neighborhood deprivation and patient-level SDoH could reduce unintended consequences of value-based programs.

Patients with both traumatic brain injury and hemorrhagic shock benefit from resuscitation with whole blood.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock in the setting of traumatic brain injury (TBI) reduces cerebral blood flow and doubles mortality. The optimal resuscitation strategy for hemorrhage in the setting of TBI is unknown. We hypothesized that, among patients presenting with concomitant hemorrhagic shock and TBI, resuscitation including whole blood (WB) is associated with decreased overall and TBI-related mortality when compared with patients receiving component (COMP) therapy alone. METHODS: An a priori subgroup of prospective, observational cohort study of injured patients receiving emergency-release blood products for hemorrhagic shock is reported. Adult trauma patients presenting November 2017 to September 2020 with TBI, defined as a Head Abbreviated Injury Scale of ≥3, were included. Whole blood group patients received any cold-store low-titer Group O WB units. The COMP group received fractionated blood components alone. Overall and TBI-related 30-day mortality, favorable discharge disposition (home or rehabilitation), and 24-hour blood product utilization were assessed. Univariate and inverse probabilities of treatment-weighted multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 564 eligible patients, 341 received WB. Patients who received WB had a higher injury severity score (median, 34 vs. 29), lower scene blood pressure (104 vs. 118), and higher arrival lactate (4.3 vs. 3.6, all p < 0.05). Univariate analysis noted similar overall mortality between WB and COMP; however, weighted multivariable analyses found WB was associated with decreased overall mortality and TBI-related mortality. There were no differences in discharge disposition between the WB group and COMP group. CONCLUSION: In patients with concomitant hemorrhagic shock and TBI, WB transfusion was associated with decreased overall mortality and TBI-related mortality. Whole blood should be considered a first-line therapy for hemorrhage in the setting of TBI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Differentiating Urgent from Elective Cases Matters in Minority Populations: Developing an Ordinal "Desirability of Outcome Ranking" to Increase Granularity and Sensitivity of Surgical Outcomes Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Surgical analyses often focus on single or binary outcomes; we developed an ordinal Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) for surgery to increase granularity and sensitivity of surgical outcome assessments. Many studies also combine elective and urgent procedures for risk adjustment. We used DOOR to examine complex associations of race/ethnicity and presentation acuity. STUDY DESIGN: NSQIP (2013 to 2019) cohort study assessing DOOR outcomes across race/ethnicity groups risk-adjusted for frailty, operative stress, preoperative acute serious conditions, and elective, urgent, and emergent cases. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,597,199 elective, 340,350 urgent, and 185,073 emergent cases with patient mean age of 60.0 ± 15.8, and 56.4% of the surgeries were performed on female patients. Minority race/ethnicity groups had increased odds of presenting with preoperative acute serious conditions (adjusted odds ratio [aORs] range 1.22 to 1.74), urgent (aOR range 1.04 to 2.21), and emergent (aOR range 1.15 to 2.18) surgeries vs the White group. Black (aOR range 1.23 to 1.34) and Native (aOR range 1.07 to 1.17) groups had increased odds of higher/worse DOOR outcomes; however, the Hispanic group had increased odds of higher/worse DOOR (aOR 1.11, CI 1.10 to 1.13), but decreased odds (aORs range 0.94 to 0.96) after adjusting for case status; the Asian group had better outcomes vs the White group. DOOR outcomes improved in minority groups when using elective vs elective/urgent cases as the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: NSQIP surgical DOOR is a new method to assess outcomes and reveals a complex interplay between race/ethnicity and presentation acuity. Combining elective and urgent cases in risk adjustment may penalize hospitals serving a higher proportion of minority populations. DOOR can be used to improve detection of health disparities and serves as a roadmap for the development of other ordinal surgical outcomes measures. Improving surgical outcomes should focus on decreasing preoperative acute serious conditions and urgent and emergent surgeries, possibly by improving access to care, especially for minority populations.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Surgical Rib Fixation to Nonoperative Management in Severe Chest Wall Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury. BACKGROUND: SSRF has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with clinical flail chest and respiratory failure. However, the effect of SSRF outcomes in severe chest wall injuries without clinical flail chest is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing SSRF to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury, defined as: (1) a radiographic flail segment without clinical flail or (2) ≥5 consecutive rib fractures or (3) any rib fracture with bicortical displacement. Randomization was stratified by the unit of admission as a proxy for injury severity. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, opioid exposure, mortality, and incidences of pneumonia and tracheostomy. Quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months was measured using the EQ-5D-5L survey. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized in an intention-to-treat analysis (usual care = 42, SSRF = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The numbers of total fractures, displaced fractures, and segmental fractures per patient were also similar, as were the incidences of displaced fractures and radiographic flail segments. Hospital LOS was greater in the SSRF group. ICU LOS and ventilator days were similar. After adjusting for the stratification variable, hospital LOS remained greater in the SSRF group (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.88). ICU LOS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.92) and ventilator days (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.61--3.69) remained similar. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with displaced fractures were more likely to have LOS outcomes similar to their usual care counterparts. At 1 month, SSRF patients had greater impairment in mobility [3 (2-3) vs 2 (1-2), P = 0.012] and self-care [2 (1-2) vs 2 (2-3), P = 0.034] dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: In severe chest wall injury, even in the absence of clinical flail chest, the majority of patients still reported moderate to extreme pain and impairment of usual physical activity at one month. SSRF increased hospital LOS and did not provide any quality of life benefit for up to 6 months.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Report the 2-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. To our knowledge, no studies have been published to date comparing long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03490266). Clinical outcomes included surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, hernia occurrence, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 175 consecutive patients were approached that were deemed eligible for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. In all, 124 were randomized and 101 completed follow-up at 2 years. Two-year follow-up was completed in 54 patients (83%) in the robotic arm and 47 patients (80%) in the laparoscopic arm. No differences were seen in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence. Hernia recurrence occurred in 2 patients (4%) receiving robotic repair versus in 6 patients (13%) receiving laparoscopic repair (relative risk: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.06-1.39; P =0.12). No patients (0%) required reoperation in the robotic arm whereas 5 patients (11%) underwent reoperation in the laparoscopic arm ( P =0.019, relative risk not calculatable due to null outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated at least similar if not improved outcomes at 2 years compared with laparoscopy. There is potential benefit with robotic repair; however, additional multi-center trials and longer follow-up are needed to validate the hypothesis-generating findings of this study.

Building infrastructure to teach quality improvement.

With growing emphasis on healthcare quality improvement (QI) at both national and local levels, there has been increased demand for instructional programs to teach quality improvement as a discipline. Design of QI teaching programs must take into account local resources as well as the background and competing commitments of the learner.  In this article, we review elements of successful quality improvement training programs including structure of didactic and experiential curricula. Special considerations for training programs at the undergraduate and graduate medical, hospital, and national/professional society level are presented.