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

BACKGROUND: 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, ICU 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 BMI, race/ethnicity, ASA scores, EBL, ICU admission, vasopressor therapy, procedure details, and wound class were observed across groups (Table 1). 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 (Table 2). After risk adjustment, SO was associated with increased risk of mortality (OR = 3.003, p = 0.028 in comparison to the SC group. SLC was associated with increased risk of superficial SSI (OR = 3.439, p = 0.014), after risk adjustment. CONCLUSION: When compared to 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. STUDY TYPE: Level III Therapeutic/Care Management.

Looking Across the Drape: A Novel Quality Improvement Approach to Understanding Surgeon and Anesthesiologist Burnout.

OBJECTIVE: To identify well-being threats for surgeons and anesthesiologists and develop interventions using the Quality of Life Improvement (QOLI) approach. BACKGROUND: Developing feasible perioperative well-being interventions requires identifying shared and specialty-specific well-being needs. The QOLI framework integrates human-centered design, implementation science, and quality improvement to address well-being needs. METHODS: Anesthesia and surgery faculty in eight perioperative departments at an academic medical center completed cross-sectional surveys containing validated measures of well-being and workplace satisfaction, and open-ended questions about professional motivations, pain points, strategies for improvement, and well-being priorities. Using template analysis, we analyzed open-ended survey data and presented resulting themes at a joint-specialty town hall for live-voting to identify well-being priorities. RESULTS: 104 perioperative faculty completed the survey. Across specialties, higher MHC-SF scores (representative of individual global well-being) were associated with higher satisfaction with workplace control, values, decision latitude, and social support. Anesthesiologists reported lower satisfaction and control than surgeons across multiple domains. Template analysis yielded five areas for intervention: (1) Work culture, (2) Work environment/resources, (3) Sources of fulfillment, (4) Work/life harmony, (5) Financial compensation. Surgeons and anesthesiologists both prioritized high-quality patient care but differed in their other top priorities. The most frequently cited well-being threats for surgeons were OR inefficiencies/delays and excessive workload, while anesthesiologists cited understaffing and unpredictable work hours. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and anesthesiologists share many needs and priorities, with pain points that are often negatively synergistic. Applying the QOLI approach across specialties allows for well-being interventions that honor complexity and promote the development of feasible solutions.

Patient Perceptions on Barriers and Facilitators to Accessing Low-acuity Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the postponement of low-acuity surgical procedures in an effort to conserve resources and ensure patient safety. This study aimed to characterize patient-reported concerns about undergoing surgical procedures during the pandemic. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to patients who had their general and plastic surgical procedures postponed at the onset of the pandemic, asking about barriers to accessing surgical care. Questions addressed dependent care, transportation, employment and insurance status, as well as perceptions of and concerns about COVID-19. Mixed methods and inductive thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients were interviewed. We identified the following patient concerns: contracting COVID-19 in the hospital (46%), being alone during hospitalization (40%), facing financial stressors (29%), organizing transportation (28%), experiencing changes to health insurance coverage (25%), and arranging care for dependents (18%). Nonwhite participants were 5 and 2.5 times more likely to have concerns about childcare and transportation, respectively. Perceptions of decreased hospital safety and the consequences of possible COVID-19 infection led to delay in rescheduling. Education about safety measures and communication about scheduling partially mitigated concerns about COVID-19. However, uncertainty about timeline for rescheduling and resolution of the pandemic contributed to ongoing concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Providing effective surgical care during this unprecedented time requires both awareness of societal shifts impacting surgical patients and system-level change to address new barriers to care. Eliciting patients' perspectives, adapting processes to address potential barriers, and effectively educating patients about institutional measures to minimize in-hospital transmission of COVID-19 should be integrated into surgical care.

Safety of concomitant cholecystectomy with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass: a MBSAQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease occurs more commonly in the obese population and is often diagnosed during the preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed outcomes of laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG), with and without cholecystectomy (LC), using data from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. SETTING: Patients reported to Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program participating centers in the United States and Canada in 2015. METHODS: All cases of LGB and SG, with and without LC, were analyzed. A 1:1 propensity-matched cohort was created for both SG and LGB, with and without concomitant LC. Multivariate logistic regression stratified by procedure was used to identify predictors of major complications after SG and LGB, using concomitant LC as a predictor. We also constructed a model for surgical site infections (SSIs) for SG group. RESULTS: Of 98,292 sleeve operations, 2046 (2%) had concomitant LC. Of 44,427 bypass operations, 1426 (3%) had concomitant LC. For the sleeve group, concomitant LC increased operative time by an average of 27 minutes but did not affect length of stay, mortality, or major complications. Concomitant LC was associated with increased SSI (1% versus .4%) and need for reoperation (1.6% versus .7%) in univariate models. After adjusting for other predictors, concomitant LC was associated with increased risk for SSI (odds ratio 2.5, confidence interval 1.0-5.9, P = .04). For the bypass group, concomitant LC increased operative time by an average of 28 minutes to the operation, and postoperative length of stay averaged ∼5 hours longer (2.4 versus 2.2 d, P = .03). Thirty-day complications were similar between the groups. On multivariate analysis, concomitant LC was not a significant risk factor for major complications. Only operative time was an independent factor for major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant LC with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass did not affect mortality or risk of major complication. For sleeve patients, concomitant LC was associated with a .6% increased risk (.4% to 1.0%) of SSI. Concomitant LC with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass is safe when indicated for gallstone disease.

Is laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy safer than laparoscopic gastric bypass? a comparison of 30-day complications using the MBSAQIP data registry.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become popular due to its technical ease and excellent short-term results. Understanding the risk profile of LSG compared with the gold standard laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is critical for patient selection. OBJECTIVES: To use traditional regression techniques and random forest classification algorithms to compare LSG with LRYGB using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Data Registry. SETTING: United States. METHODS: Outcomes were leak, morbidity, and mortality within 30 days. Variable importance was assessed using random forest algorithms. Multivariate models were created in a training set and evaluated on the testing set with receiver operating characteristic curves. The adjusted odds of each outcome were compared. RESULTS: Of 134,142 patients, 93,062 (69%) underwent LSG and 41,080 (31%) underwent LRYGB. One hundred seventy-eight deaths occurred in 96 (.1%) of LSG patients compared with 82 (.2%) of LRYGB patients (P<.001). Morbidity occurred in 8% (5.8% in LSG versus 11.7% in LRYGB, P<.001). Leaks occurred in 1% (.8% in LSG versus 1.6% in LRYGB, P<.001). The most important predictors of all outcomes were body mass index, albumin, and age. In the adjusted multivariate models, LRYGB had higher odds of all complications (leak: odds ratio 2.10, P<.001; morbidity: odds ratio 2.02, P<.001; death: odds ratio 1.64, P<.01). CONCLUSION: In the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvements data registry for 2015, LSG had half the risk-adjusted odds of death, serious morbidity, and leak in the first 30 days compared with LRYGB.