Fever After Colectomy in the Enhanced Recovery Era: Incidence and Risk Factors for Pathologic Source.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative fever following elective colectomy is common and often results in comprehensive laboratory and radiographic testing. We hypothesized that risk factors for febrile complications may be identified with data available at the time of initial fever episode and that a significant proportion of patients exists in which additional testing is of minimal utility. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at a single institution between 2015 and 2020 with postoperative fever ≥38.0°C. Febrile patients with a clinically significant fever source requiring a change in management were compared to patients with fever that resolved spontaneously. An additive risk score from 0 to 3 was generated from selected characteristics with P-value <0.001. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the odds of infection with the risk score entered as a binary variable (0-1 versus 2-3 risk factors). RESULTS: Of 1036 elective colectomy patients, 143 (13.8%) had postoperative fever ≥38.0°C. Among the febrile patients, 27 had a positive evaluation (18.9%). Active smoking status (P = 0.018), time from surgery to fever, fever ≥38.5°C, other vital sign changes, and documented localizing signs/symptoms (all, P < 0.001) were associated with an identifiable source of fever. On multivariable regression, the presence of 2-3 risk factors and fever onset after postoperative day 1 were associated with a positive fever evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Few patients with fever after colectomy required a change in clinical management. Those without multiple risk factors elicited from an interval history and physical exam are unlikely to benefit from additional testing.

Towards Equitable Surgical Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of Disparities in Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence for disparities in inflammatory bowel disease is fragmented and heterogenous. Underlying mechanisms for differences in outcomes based on race and socioeconomic status remain undefined. We performed a systematic review of the literature to examine disparities in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease in the United States. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 2000 through June 11, 2021, to identify studies addressing disparities in surgical treatment for adults with inflammatory bowel disease. Eligible English-language publications comparing the use or outcomes of surgery by racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic, and/or institutional factors were included. Studies were grouped according to whether outcomes of surgery were reported or surgery itself was the relevant end point (utilization). Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: Forty-five studies were included. Twenty-four reported surgical outcomes and 21addressed utilization. Race/ethnicity was considered in 96% of studies, socioeconomic status in 44%, geographic factors in 27%, and hospital/surgeon factors in 22%. Although study populations and end points were heterogeneous, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to undergo abdominal surgery when hospitalized; they were more likely to have a complication when they did have surgery. Differences based on race were correlated with socioeconomic factors but frequently remained significant after adjustments for insurance and baseline health. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical disparities based on sociologic and structural factors reflect unidentified differences in multidisciplinary disease management. A broad, multidimensional approach to disparities research with more granular and diverse data sources is needed to improve health care quality and equity for inflammatory bowel disease.

Existing evidence for disparities in inflammatory bowel disease management is fragmented. In reviewing the surgical literature, differences in outcomes by race and socioeconomic status reveal opportunities for improving equity while highlighting continued knowledge gaps in understanding disparities.