Association between chronic steroids and outcomes in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chronic steroid use has been associated with increased postoperative complication; however, the association between chronic steroids and hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery through all aspects of disease etiologies and types of surgery performed remains an area of active research. Therefore, this study analyzed the association of chronic steroids use with outcomes after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files for hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeries performed between 2015 and 2019 were analyzed for chronic steroid use and postoperative adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 54,382 patients underwent hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery during the study period, of which 1672 (3.1%) were on chronic steroids. In patients undergoing pancreatic surgery, steroid use was associated with higher rates of pneumonia (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-2.2), unplanned intubation (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-2.3), readmission (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.3-2.4), intraoperative or postoperative transfusions (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-2.3), being more likely to remain on a ventilator for greater than 48 h (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.9), and greater mortality (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-3.1) when compared to those, not on chronic steroids. In patients undergoing hepatobiliary surgery, chronic steroid use was associated with higher rates of sepsis (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-2.9), unplanned intubation (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-2.7), intraoperative or postoperative transfusions (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-2.3), and readmission (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.9). There was no difference in pancreatic fistula rates or post-hepatectomy liver failure rates after pancreatic and hepatobiliary resections, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chronic steroids use was associated with higher rates of poor outcomes both perioperatively and postoperatively in pancreatic and hepatobiliary surgery. These results will allow clinicians to be better equipped to counsel patients on surgery's increased risks and establish various perioperative protocols for chronic steroid users.

Poor accessibility to consumer pricing exists for elective hernia repair surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital price transparency is federally mandated to improve consumer accessibility. We aimed to evaluate how hospitals were complying with these regulations for elective hernia repairs. METHODS: Searches were performed for different hospital systems in attempt to find a price for the procedure using author's own health insurance. Data collected included time to reach the cost estimate tool, time to obtain price estimates, and price ranges. With prices for inguinal and ventral hernia repairs varying across the state's medical centers. RESULTS: Fourteen medical centers across the country were included, all had a cost estimate calculator. The average success rate of obtaining a cost for inguinal hernia was 48%. Comparatively, the average success rate of obtaining a cost for ventral hernia was 12%. Of the successful searches for price, significant variation exists amongst the accessed hernia procedure cost. CONCLUSION: Despite federal mandates for hospital price transparency, online cost-estimate calculators are underperforming, thus exposing a need for more accessible cost-estimates for patients undergoing elective hernia repair.

Perceptions and Early Outcomes of the Acuity Circles Allocation Policy Among Liver Transplant Centers in the United States.

Recently, a new liver allocation policy called the acuity circles (AC) framework was implemented to decrease geographic disparities in transplant metrics across donor service areas. Early analyses have examined the changes in outcomes because of the AC policy. However, perceptions among transplant surgeons and staff regarding the new policy remain unknown. Methods: A 28-item survey was sent to division chiefs and surgical directors of liver transplantation across the United States. Questions assessed the respondents' perceptions regarding center-level metrics and staff satisfaction. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to study differences in allocation between the pre-AC implementation period (2019) and the post-AC implementation period (2020-2021). Results: A total of 40 participants completed this ongoing survey study. Most responses were from region 8 (13%), region 10 (15%), and region 11 (13%). Sixty-three percent of respondents stated that the wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score <30 has decreased, whereas 50% stated that wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score >30 has increased. However, most respondents (75%) felt that the average cost per transplant had increased and that the rate of surgical complications and 1-y graft survival had remained the same. In most states, an observable decrease in in-state liver transplantations occurred each year between 2019 and 2021. In addition, most allocation regions reported an increase in donations after circulatory deaths between 2019 and 2021. Conclusions: Perceptions of the new AC policy among liver transplant surgeons in the United States remain mixed, highlighting the potential strengths and concerns regarding its future impact. Further studies should assess the effects of the AC policy on clinical outcomes and liver transplantation access.

The undisclosed disclosures: Conflicts of interest in studies related to robotics in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of robotics in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery has increased. With this increased collaboration, there has also been a push toward improving the transparency of conflicts of interest in terms of funding provided by robotics companies. METHODS: Studies with ≥1 American author published between 2016 and 2020 discussing robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery were included in the analysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Program was used to evaluate the accuracy of industry payment disclosures. Conflict of interest was defined as a lack of disclosure of ≥$100 funding from any robotics company in the United States. The primary outcome of this study was to determine the efficacy of the current standard conflict of interest reporting in surgery. RESULTS: A total of 355 studies (2,413 authors) were included. Of the studies that received robotics funding (n = 133), 20.3% did not disclose their conflicts of interest, whereas 79.7% had a conflict of interest disclosure. However, most of the disclosures (76.5%) were inaccurate. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study require an update in journal policies to ensure the accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery studies. Similarly, the investigators should ensure that their disclosures are accurate. Finally, surgeons must be more on top of their relationships with these companies and consider their vulnerability to bias.