Harnessing artificial intelligence in bariatric surgery: comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard in generating clinician-level bariatric surgery recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The formulation of clinical recommendations pertaining to bariatric surgery is essential in guiding healthcare professionals. However, the extensive and continuously evolving body of literature in bariatric surgery presents considerable challenge for staying abreast of latest developments and efficient information acquisition. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to streamline access to the salient points of clinical recommendations in bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: The study aims to appraise the quality and readability of AI-chat-generated answers to frequently asked clinical inquiries in the field of bariatric and metabolic surgery. SETTING: Remote. METHODS: Question prompts inputted into AI large language models (LLMs) and were created based on pre-existing clinical practice guidelines regarding bariatric and metabolic surgery. The prompts were queried into 3 LLMs: OpenAI ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Bing, and Google Bard. The responses from each LLM were entered into a spreadsheet for randomized and blinded duplicate review. Accredited bariatric surgeons in North America independently assessed appropriateness of each recommendation using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores of 4 and 5 were deemed appropriate, while scores of 1-3 indicated lack of appropriateness. A Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score was calculated to assess the readability of responses generated by each LLMs. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs in their 5-point Likert scores, with mean values of 4.46 (SD .82), 3.89 (.80), and 3.11 (.72) for ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing (P < .001). There was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs in the proportion of appropriate answers, with ChatGPT-4 at 85.7%, Bard at 74.3%, and Bing at 25.7% (P < .001). The mean FRE scores for ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing, were 21.68 (SD 2.78), 42.89 (4.03), and 14.64 (5.09), respectively, with higher scores representing easier readability. CONCLUSIONS: LLM-based AI chat models can effectively generate appropriate responses to clinical questions related to bariatric surgery, though the performance of different models can vary greatly. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting clinical information provided by LLMs, and clinician oversight is necessary to ensure accuracy. Future investigation is warranted to explore how LLMs might enhance healthcare provision and clinical decision-making in bariatric surgery.

Frailty in inflammatory bowel disease: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Preoperative frailty has been associated with adverse postoperative outcomes in various populations, but of its use in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains sparse. The present study aimed to characterize the impact of frailty, as measured by the modified frailty index (mFI), on postoperative clinical and resource utilization outcomes in patients with IBD. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study assessed patients from the National Inpatient Sample database from 1 September 2015 to 31 December 2019. Corresponding International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Clinical Modification codes were used to identify adult patients (>18 years of age) with IBD, undergoing either small bowel resection, colectomy or proctectomy. Patient demographics and institutional data were collected for each patient to calculate the 11-point mFI. Patients were categorized as either frail or robust using a cut-off of 0.27. Primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality, whilst secondary outcomes included system-specific morbidity, length of stay, in-hospital healthcare costs and discharge disposition. Logistic and linear regression models were used for primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 7144 patients with IBD undergoing small bowel resection, colectomy or proctectomy were identified, 337 of whom were classified as frail (i.e., mFI < 0.27). Frail patients were more likely to be women, older, have lower income and a greater number of comorbidities. After adjusting for relevant covariates, frail patients were at greater odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.42, 95% CI 2.31-12.77, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.30-2.28, P < 0.001), increased length of stay (adjusted mean difference 1.3 days, 95% CI 0.09-2.50, P = 0.035) and less likely to be discharged to home (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77, P < 0.001) compared to their robust counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Frail IBD patients are at greater risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity, and reduced likelihood of discharge to home, following surgery. This has implications for clinicians designing care pathways for IBD patients following surgery.

Modified frailty index predicts postoperative morbidity in adhesive small bowel obstruction: analyzing the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data identifying predictors of postoperative outcomes in adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO). This study used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to assess the efficacy of the modified frailty index (mFI) to predict postoperative morbidity among patients undergoing an operation for ASBO. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the NIS between September 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, was performed to identify adult patients who underwent nonelective operative intervention for ASBO. The mFI was used to stratify patients as either frail (mFI value ≥ 0.27) or robust (mFI value < 0.27). The primary outcomes were overall in-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were system-specific morbidity, length of stay (LOS), total in-hospital healthcare cost, and discharge disposition. Univariable and multivariable regressions were used. RESULTS: Overall, 23251 robust patients and 6122 frail patients were included. Adjusted analyses demonstrated that frail patients had increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.80-2.60), postoperative morbidity (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.52-1.74), postoperative LOS (adjusted mean difference [aMD], 0.97 days; 95% CI, 0.73-1.21), and total in-hospital healthcare costs (aMD, $18,921; 95% CI, $14,608-$23,235) and were less likely to be discharged home (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.55-0.63). The findings were unchanged on subgroup analysis of patients undergoing open operation and those older than 65 years of age. CONCLUSION: The mFI may predict postoperative outcomes for ASBO. Stratifying patients based on frailty may assist clinicians and patients in making informed decisions, setting realistic expectations, and proactively planning postoperative disposition.

Assessing the Modified Frailty Index and Post-Operative Outcomes in Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies identifying predictors of postoperative outcomes in adhesive small bowel obstruction are limited. This study investigates the efficacy of the modified frailty index (mFI)to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction after failed trial of nonoperative management between January 2015 and December 2020 was performed. Impact of frailty status using the mFI, stratified as frail (≥0.27) and robust (<0.27), on postoperative morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and discharge destination was evaluated using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Ninety-two robust patients (mean age 62.4 y, 68% female) and 41 frail patients (mean age 81.7 y, 63% female) were included. On simple stratification, frail patients had significantly increased 30-d morbidity (overall morbidity 80% versus 49%) and need for higher level of care on discharge (41% versus 9%). However, on multiple regression, functional dependence but not the mFI, was independently associated with worse 30-d overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 3.97, confidence interval [CI] 1.29-12.19) and lower likelihood of returning to preoperative disposition (OR 0.21, CI 0.05-0.91). The delay in operation beyond 5 d was independently associated with worse 30-d outcomes including overall morbidity and mortality (OR 7.54, CI 2.13-26.73) and decreased return to preoperative disposition (OR 0.14, CI 0.04-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: The mFI, although promising, was not independently predictive of outcomes following surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Further adequately powered studies are required.

Prucalopride and Bowel Function Post Gastrointestinal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) contributes to morbidity and prolonged hospitalization. Prucalopride, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor agonist, may enhance bowel motility. This review assesses whether the perioperative use of prucalopride compared to placebo is associated with accelerated return of bowel function post gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. METHODS: OVID, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched as of January 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prucalopride and placebo for prevention of PPOI in adult patients undergoing GI surgery. The primary outcomes were time to stool, time to flatus, and time to oral tolerance. The secondary outcomes were incidence of PPOI, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, adverse events, and overall costs. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework were used. An inverse variance random effects model was used. RESULTS: From 174 citations, 3 RCTs with 139 patients in each treatment group were included. Patients underwent a variety of GI surgeries. Patients treated with prucalopride had a decreased time to stool (mean difference 36.82 hours, 95% CI 59.4 to 14.24 hours lower, I2 = 62%, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not statistically significantly different (very low certainty evidence). Postoperative complications and adverse events could not be meta-analyzed due to heterogeneity; yet individual studies suggested no significant differences (very low certainty evidence). DISCUSSION: Current RCT evidence suggests that prucalopride may enhance postoperative return of bowel function. Larger RCTs assessing patient important outcomes and associated costs are needed before routine use of this agent.

Financial toxicity among patients undergoing resectional surgery for inflammatory bowel disease in the United States.

AIM: Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that patients experience due to medical treatment. Financial toxicity has yet to be characterized among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surgical management of their disease. This study investigated the risk of financial toxicity associated with undergoing surgery for IBD. METHODS: This study used a retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2019. Adult patients who underwent IBD-related surgery were identified using the International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) diagnostic and procedure codes and stratified into privately insured and uninsured groups. The primary outcome was risk of financial toxicity, defined as hospital admission charges that constituted 40% or more of patient's post-subsistence income. Secondary outcomes included total hospital admission cost and predictors of financial toxicity. RESULTS: The analytical cohort consisted of 6412 privately insured and 3694 uninsured patients. Overall median hospital charges were $21 628 (interquartile range $14 758-$35 386). Risk of financial toxicity was 86.5% among uninsured patients and 0% among insured patients. Predictors of financial toxicity included emergency admission, being in the lowest residential income quartile and having ulcerative colitis (compared to Crohn's disease). Additional predictors were being of Black race or male sex. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is a serious consequence of IBD-related surgery among uninsured patients. Given the pervasive nature of this consequence, future steps to support uninsured patients receiving surgery, in particular emergency surgery, related to their IBD are needed to protect this group from financial risk.

Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction After Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal With Sugammadex Versus Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD) commonly occurs following gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and is associated with specific anesthetic agents. Cholinesterase inhibitors employed for reversing neuromuscular blockade have been implicated in development of POGD. Sugammadex, a novel reversal agent, is linked with reduced POGD. However, there is a lack of comprehensive comparative review between these agents regarding their impact on POGD following GI surgery. This study aims to systematically review the effects of sugammadex on POGD compared to cholinesterase inhibitors following GI surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched as of July 2022 to identify articles comparing sugammadex with cholinesterase inhibitors in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, specifically in relation to POGD. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, readmission rates, pulmonary complications, and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: From 198 citations, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 retrospective cohorts with 717 patients receiving sugammadex and 812 patients receiving cholinesterase inhibitors were included. Significantly lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus (OR .44, 95% CI .25-.77, P < .05, I2 = 56%, low certainty evidence) was observed with sugammadex. No significant difference in any other outcome was observed. Narrative review of readmission data demonstrated no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The use of sugammadex following gastrointestinal surgery is associated with significantly lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus compared to cholinesterase inhibitors. However, these do not translate into a significant reduction in length of stay, morbidity, or postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results are limited by the numer of studies included and missing data, more robust RCTs are needed before recommendations can be made.

Short-term postoperative outcomes for obese versus non-obese inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing bowel resection: a propensity score matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Up to 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are obese. Obesity is a well-known risk factor for increased perioperative morbidity, but this risk has never been quantified in IBD patients undergoing abdominal surgery using the United States National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. This study aims to compare postoperative morbidity between obese and non-obese patients undergoing bowel resection for IBD using recent NIS data. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent bowel resection for IBD from 2015 to 2019 were identified in the NIS using ICD-10-CM coding. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese groups, then propensity score matched (PSM) for demographic, operative, and hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative in-hospital mortality, system-specific postoperative complications, total admission healthcare costs, and length of stay (LOS). Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 6601 non-obese patients and 671 obese patients were identified. The PSM cohort included 659 patients per group. Obese patients had significantly increased odds of experiencing postoperative in-hospital morbidity (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.03, p = 0.010) compared to non-obese patients. Specifically, obese patients experienced increased gastrointestinal complications (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.00-2.24, p = 0.050), and genitourinary complications (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12-2.61, p = 0.013). There were no differences in total admission healthcare costs (MD - $2256.32, 95% CI - 19,144.54-14,631.9, p = 0.79) or LOS (MD 0.16 days, 95% CI - 0.93-1.27, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Obese IBD patients are at greater risk of postoperative in-hospital morbidity than non-obese IBD patients. This supports targeted preoperative weight loss protocols for IBD patients to optimize surgical outcomes.

Fragility of Statistically Significant Outcomes in Colonic Diverticular Disease Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The p value has been criticized as an oversimplified determination of whether a treatment effect exists. One alternative is the fragility index. It is a representation of the minimum number of nonevents that would need to be converted to events to increase the p value above 0.05. OBJECTIVE: To determine the fragility index of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of interventions for patients with diverticular disease since 2010 to assess the robustness of current evidence. DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to August 2022. SETTINGS: Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized trials conducted between 2010 and 2022 with parallel, superiority designs evaluating interventions in patients with diverticular disease. Only randomized trials with dichotomous primary outcomes with an associated p value of <0.05 were considered for inclusion. PARTICIPANTS: Any surgical or medical intervention for patients with diverticular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The fragility index was determined by adding events and subtracting nonevents from the groups with the smaller number of events. Events were added until the p value exceeded 0.05. The smallest number of events required was considered the fragility index. RESULTS: After screening 1271 citations, 15 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the studies evaluated surgical interventions and 6 evaluated medical interventions. The mean number of patients randomly assigned and lost to follow-up per randomized controlled trial was 92 (SD 35.3) and 9 (SD 11.4), respectively. The median fragility index was 1 (range, 0-5). The fragility indices for the included studies did not correlate significantly with any study characteristics. LIMITATIONS: Small sample, heterogeneity, and lack of inclusion of studies with continuous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The randomized trials evaluating surgical and medical interventions for diverticular disease are not robust. Changing a single-outcome event in most studies was sufficient to make a statistically significant study finding not significant. See Video Abstract . FRAGILIDAD DE LOS RESULTADOS ESTADSTICAMENTE SIGNIFICATIVOS EN ENSAYOS ALEATORIOS DE ENFERMEDAD DIVERTICULAR DEL COLON UNA REVISIN SISTEMTICA: ANTECEDENTES:El valor p ha sido criticado por una determinación demasiado simplificada de si existe un efecto del tratamiento. Una alternativa es el Índice de Fragilidad. Es una representación del número mínimo de no eventos que deberían convertirse en eventos para aumentar el valor p por encima de 0,05.OBJETIVO:Determinar el IF de ensayos controlados aleatorios que evalúan la eficacia de las intervenciones para pacientes con enfermedad diverticular desde 2010 para evaluar la solidez de la evidencia actual.FUENTES DE DATOS:Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE, Embase y CENTRAL desde el inicio hasta agosto de 2022.SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS:Los artículos eran elegibles para su inclusión si eran ensayos aleatorizados realizados entre 2010 y 2022 con diseños paralelos de superioridad que evaluaran intervenciones en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. Sólo se consideraron para su inclusión los ensayos aleatorizados con resultados primarios dicotómicos con un valor de p asociado menor que 0,05.INTERVENCIÓNES:Cualquier intervención quirúrgica o médica para pacientes con enfermedad diverticular.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:El índice de fragilidad se determinó sumando eventos y restando no eventos de los grupos con el menor número de eventos. Se agregaron eventos hasta que el valor p superó 0,05. El menor número de eventos requeridos se consideró índice de fragilidad.RESULTADOS:Después de examinar 1271 citas, 15 ensayos aleatorios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Nueve de los estudios evaluaron intervenciones quirúrgicas y seis evaluaron intervenciones médicas. El número medio de pacientes aleatorizados y perdidos durante el seguimiento por ECA fue 92 (DE 35,3) y 9 (DE 11,4), respectivamente. La mediana del índice de fragilidad fue 1 (rango: 0-5). Los índices de fragilidad de los estudios incluidos no se correlacionaron significativamente con ninguna característica del estudio.LIMITACIONES:Muestra pequeña, heterogeneidad y falta de inclusión de estudios con resultados continuos.CONCLUSIONES:Los ensayos aleatorios que evalúan las intervenciones quirúrgicas y médicas para la enfermedad diverticular no son sólidos. Cambiar un solo evento de resultado en la mayoría de los estudios fue suficiente para que un hallazgo estadísticamente significativo del estudio no fuera significativo. (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

The role of warmed-humidified carbon dioxide insufflation in colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance of normothermia is a crucial part of enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery. Dry-cold carbon dioxide (CO2 ) traditionally used for insufflation in laparoscopic surgery and negative pressure operating theatres has been associated with intraoperative hypothermia. Studies suggest that use of warmed-humidified CO2 may promote normothermia. However, due to a scarcity of high-quality studies demonstrating a proven benefit on intraoperative core body temperature, its use in colorectal surgery remains limited. Therefore, the aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of warmed-humidified CO2 compared to traditional dry-cold CO2 , or ambient air in operating theatres, during colorectal surgery. METHODS: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared patients receiving warmed-humidified CO2 with either dry-cold CO2 insufflation in laparoscopic procedures or no insufflation during open surgery were included. The primary outcome was change in intraoperative core body temperature. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, operating time, return of gastrointestinal function, wound infection, and postoperative pain. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: Among the six RCTs included, 208 patients received warmed-humidified CO2 (42.3% female, mean age: 65.8 years) and 210 patients received either dry-cold CO2 in laparoscopic procedures or no gas insufflation during open procedures (46.2% female, mean age: 66.1 years). No significant difference was found for change in intraoperative core body temperature (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.1, 0.11, p = 0.90, very low certainty). Patients in the warmed-humidified CO2 group had significantly higher pain scores on postoperative day 1 (MD = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.91, 2.31, p < 0.05, very low certainty). No significant differences were found in any of the other secondary outcomes studied. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery receiving warmed-humidified CO2 do not experience any clinically meaningful difference in core body temperature change compared to their counterparts receiving dry-cold CO2 insufflation or no insufflation. However, patients may report greater pain scores on postoperative day 1 with warmed-humidified CO2 . There is likely no clinically important difference between warmed-humidified CO2 and dry-cold CO2 for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Patient, clinician, and institution factors should be considered when deciding between these two insufflation modalities.

The impact of operative approach for obese colorectal cancer patients: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

AIM: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for the development of colorectal cancer. As such, patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer have increasingly higher body mass indices (BMIs). The advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques in recent years have helped surgeons circumvent some of the challenges associated with operating in the setting of obesity. While previous studies suggest that laparoscopy improves outcomes compared with open surgery in obese patients, this has never been established at the population level. Therefore, we designed a retrospective database study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) with the aim of comparing laparoscopic with open approaches for obese patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2015 to 2019 was conducted including patients with a BMI of greater than 30 kg/m2 undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative system-specific complications, total admission healthcare cost and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: A total of 4742 patients underwent open surgery and 3231 underwent laparoscopic surgery. We observed a significant decrease in overall postoperative morbidity [17.5% vs. 31.4%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.64; p < 0.001], gastrointestinal morbidity (8.1% vs. 14.5%, aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69; p < 0.001) and genitourinary morbidity (10.1% vs. 18.6%, aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) with the use of laparoscopy. Postoperative LOS was 1.7 days shorter (95% CI 1.5-2.0, p < 0.001) and cost of admission was decreased by $9106 (95% CI $4638-$13 573, p < 0.001) with laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for obese patients with colorectal cancer is associated with significantly decreased postoperative morbidity and improved healthcare resource utilization compared with open surgery. Laparoscopic approaches should be relied upon whenever feasible for these patients.

Lymph Node Ratio as a Predictor of Survival for Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node ratio is the number of lymph nodes with evidence of metastases on pathological review compared to the total number of lymph nodes harvested during oncologic resection. Lymph node ratio is a proven predictor of long-term survival. These data have not been meta-analyzed to determine the prognosis associated with different lymph node ratio cut-offs in colon cancer. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared 5-year overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between different lymph node ratios for patients undergoing oncologic resection for stages I-III colon cancer. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects were performed. RESULTS: From 2587 citations, nine studies with 97,631 patients (female: 51.9%, median age: 61.65 years) were included. A lymph node ratio above .1 resulted in a 49% decrease in the odds of 5-year OS (2 studies; OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.49-.53, P < .00001). A lymph node ratio above .25 resulted in a 56% decrease in the odds of 5-year OS (3 studies; OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.43-.45, P < .00001). A lymph node ratio above .5 resulted in a 65% decrease in the odds of 5-year OS (3 studies; OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.33-.37, P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node ratios from .1 to .5 are effective predictors of 5-year OS for colon cancer. There appears to be an inverse dose-response relationship between lymph node ratio and 5-year OS. Further study is required to determine whether there is an optimal lymph node ratio cut-off for prognostication and whether it can inform which patients may benefit from more aggressive adjuvant therapy and follow-up protocols.

Disparities in access to minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease and outcomes by insurance status: analysis of the 2015 to 2019 National Inpatient Sample.

INTRODUCTION: Despite being the preferred modality for treatment of colorectal cancer and diverticular disease, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been adopted slowly for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) due to its technical challenges. The present study aims to assess the disparities in use of MIS for patients with IBD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from October 2015 to December 2019 was conducted. Patients < 65 years of age were stratified by either private insurance or Medicaid. The primary outcome was access to MIS and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, complications, length of stay (LOS), and total admission cost. Univariate and multivariate regression was utilized to determine the association between insurance status and outcomes. RESULTS: The NIS sample population included 7866 patients with private insurance and 1689 with Medicaid. Medicaid patients had lower odds of receiving MIS than private insurance patients (OR 0.85, 95% CI [0.74-0.97], p = 0.017), and experienced more postoperative genitourinary complications (OR 1.36, 95% CI [1.08-1.71], p = 0.009). In addition, LOS was longer by 1.76 days (p < 0.001) and the total cost was higher by $5043 USD (p < 0.001) in the Medicaid group. Independent predictors of receiving MIS were age < 40 years old, female sex, highest income quartile, diagnosis of ulcerative colitis, elective admission, and care at teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Medicaid are less likely to receive MIS, have longer lengths of stay, and incur higher costs for the surgical management of their IBD. Further investigations into disparities in inflammatory bowel disease care for Medicaid patients are warranted.

A history of bariatric surgery before surgery for colorectal cancer may improve short-term postoperative outcomes: Analysis of the national inpatient sample 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective and sustainable form of weight loss. Bariatric surgery before elective operations for colorectal pathology may improve postoperative outcomes. To compare patients with and without prior bariatric surgery undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity and health care use. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer from 2015 to 2019 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were stratified according to their history of bariatric surgery. Propensity score matching with 4:1 nearest-neighbor matching was performed according to demographic, operative, and hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included system-specific postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative length of stay, total admission health care cost, and post-discharge disposition. McNemar's test and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test were performed. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1,197 patients without prior bariatric surgery and 376 patients with prior bariatric surgery were included. Patients with prior bariatric surgery had an absolute reduction of 6.5% in overall in-hospital postoperative morbidity (19.1% vs 25.6%, P < .0001), a $5,256 decrease in hospitalization cost ($70,344 vs $75,600, P = .034), and were more likely to be discharged home after their index operation (72.9% vs 63.9%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery before surgery for colorectal cancer may be associated with decreased postoperative morbidity and health care use. Bariatric surgery and other forms of rapid and effective weight loss, such as very low-energy diets, should be evaluated further for the optimization of obese patients before nonbariatric abdominal surgery.

Financial toxicity risk among patients with gastric banding complications in the United States: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) was historically among the most performed bariatric procedures but has fallen out of favor in recent years due to poor long-term weight loss and high revisional surgery rates. Significant financial hardship of medical care, known as "financial toxicity," can occur from experiencing unexpected complications of AGB. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk of financial toxicity among patients being admitted for AGB complications. SETTING: United States. METHODS: All uninsured and privately-insured patients who were admitted for AGB complications were identified from the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019. Publicly available government data (U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) were utilized to estimate patient income, food expenditures, and average maximum out-of-pocket expenditures. Financial toxicity was defined as total admission cost from AGB complications ≥40% of postsubsistence income. RESULTS: Among 28,005 patients, 66% patients had private insurance and 44% patients were uninsured. Median total admission cost was $12,443 (interquartile range $7959-$19,859) and $15,182 for those who received revisional bariatric surgery. Approximately 55% of the uninsured patients and 1% of insured patients were at risk of financial toxicity after admission for banding-related complications. Patients who had an emergency admission, revisional surgery, or postoperative intensive care unit admission were more likely to experience financial catastrophe following admission (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 2 uninsured patients admitted for AGB-related complications were at risk of financial toxicity. In addition to surgical risks, providers should consider the potential financial consequences of AGB when counselling patients on their choice of surgery.

Primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy versus Hartmann's procedure for acute complicated diverticulitis: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of patients with acute complicated diverticulitis require operative management on their index admission. There is ongoing debate as to whether primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy versus a Hartmann's procedure is the optimal surgical approach for these patients. This study aims to compare postoperative complications in patients undergoing either Hartmann's procedure or primary anastomosis and diverting ileostomy for perforated diverticulitis using recent National Inpatient Sample data. METHODS: Patients who underwent either primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy or Hartmann's procedure for acute complicated diverticulitis from the 2015 to 2019 NIS database sample were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcomes were postoperative cause-specific complications, total admission cost, and length of stay (LOS). Univariate and multivariate regression were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: Overall, 642 patients underwent primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy and 4,482 patients underwent Hartmann's procedure. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.45-1.92, p = 0.84) or in-hospital morbidity (OR 1.10, 95%CI 0.90-1.35, p = 0.33). Adjusted analysis suggested shorter postoperative LOS for patients undergoing Hartmann's procedure (MD 0.79 days, 95%CI 0.15-1.43 days, p = 0.013) and decreased total admission cost (MD $4,893.99, 95%CI $1,425.04-$8,362.94, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The present study supports that primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy is safe for properly selected patients presenting with complicated diverticulitis. Primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy is associated with greater total hospitalization costs and LOS.

Long-term outcomes following Dor, Toupet, and Nissen fundoplication: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the surgical management of GERD, the traditional procedure is laparoscopic total (Nissen) fundoplication. However, partial fundoplication has been advocated as providing similar reflux control while potentially minimizing dysphagia. The comparative outcomes of different approaches to fundoplication are a topic of ongoing debate and long-term outcomes remain uncertain. This study aims to compare long-term gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) related outcomes following different fundoplication procedures. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to November 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of fundoplications reporting long-term (> 5 years) outcomes. The primary outcome was incidence of dysphagia. Secondary outcomes included incidence of heartburn/reflux, regurgitation, inability to belch, abdominal bloating, reoperation, and patient satisfaction. DataParty, which uses Python 3.8.10 was used to perform the network meta-analysis. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence with the GRADE framework. RESULTS: 13 RCTs were included, with 2063 patients across Nissen (360°), Dor (anterior 180°-200°), and Toupet (posterior 270°) fundoplications. Network estimates demonstrated that Toupet had lower incidence of dysphagia compared to Nissen (OR 0.285; 95% CrI 0.06-0.958). There were no differences in dysphagia between Toupet and Dor (OR 0.473, 95% CrI 0.072-2.835) or between Dor and Nissen (OR 1.689, 95% CrI 0.403-7.699). The three fundoplication types were comparable in all other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: All three approaches of fundoplication share similar long-term outcomes, with the Toupet fundoplication likely providing the best long-term durability with lowest odds of developing postoperative dysphagia.

HEmoRhoidal disease management with Band ligation versus polidocanol Sclerotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis (the HerBS Review).

PURPOSE: Symptomatic internal hemorrhoids affect up to 40% of people in Western society. Patients with grade I-III hemorrhoids, who fail lifestyle and medical management, may benefit from office-based procedures. As per the American Society of Colon and Rectum Surgeons (ASCRS), rubber band ligation (RBL) is the first-line office-based treatment. Polidocanol sclerotherapy is a relatively new approach for these patients. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy of RBL and polidocanol sclerotherapy with the treatment of symptomatic grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. METHODS: The systematic review was completed by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to August 2022 for prospective studies comparing RBL and polidocanol sclerotherapy or evaluating the efficacy of polidocanol sclerotherapy alone for adult (> 18 years) patients with grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. Treatments were evaluated for therapeutic success and post-procedure morbidity. RESULTS: Of 155 citations obtained, 10 studies (3 comparative and 7 single-arm studies) and 4 abstracts (2 comparative and 2 single arm) were included in the study. The patients undergoing sclerotherapy had a 93% (151/163) therapeutic success rate compared to 75% (68/91) in the RBL group (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.48-7.74, p < 0.01). The post-procedure morbidity was 8% (17/200) in the sclerotherapy group and 18% (23/128) in the RBL group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15-1.82, p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: This study highlights that polidocanol sclerotherapy may be associated with higher therapeutic success in patients with symptomatic grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. Further evaluations in the form of randomized trials are required to evaluate patient populations, which may benefit more from sclerotherapy.

Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Utility of robotic over laparoscopic approach has been an area of debate across all surgical specialties over the past decade. The fragility index (FI) is a metric that evaluates the frailty of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings by altering the status of patients from an event to non-event until significance is lost. This study aims to evaluate the robustness of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominopelvic surgeries through the FI. METHODS: A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, gynecology, and urology. The FI and reverse fragility Index (RFI) metrics were used to assess the strength of findings reported by RCTs, and bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze relationships between FI and trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 21 RCTs were included, with a median sample size of 89 participants (Interquartile range [IQR] 62-126). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-15) and median RFI 5.5 (IQR 4-8.5). The median FI was 3 (IQR 1-15) for general surgery (n = 7), 2 (0.5-3.5) for gynecology (n = 4), and 0 (IQR 0-8.5) for urology RCTs (n = 4). Correlation was found between increasing FI and decreasing p-value, but not sample size, number of outcome events, journal impact factor, loss to follow-up, or risk of bias. CONCLUSION: RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominal surgery did not prove to be very robust. While possible advantages of robotic surgery may be emphasized, it remains novel and requires further concrete RCT data.

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). CONCLUSIONS: GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.