Examining Utility of Routine Splenic Flexure Mobilization during Colectomy and Impact on Anastomotic Complications.

BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of supporting data, routine splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) during colectomy has been thought to reduce anastomotic leak (AL). We evaluated the impact of SFM on outcomes in distal colectomy. STUDY DESIGN: The 2005-2016 NSQIP database identified 66,068 patients undergoing distal colectomy with anastomosis. Cohorts were stratified by addition of SFM. Postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Regression analysis identified factors affecting odds of developing AL. RESULTS: SFM was performed in 27,475 patients (41.6%). There was no difference in overall complications between cases with SFM and those without (p = 0.55). SFM had longer operative times (220 min vs. 184 min; p < 0.0001). SFM was not associated with any difference in AL rate (3.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.86). Factors most associated with AL were lack of oral antibiotic preparation (OR 1.93; p < 0.001), chemotherapy (OR 1.91; p < 0.001), and weight loss (OR 1.68; p = 0.0005). Operative indication and approach did not affect leak. CONCLUSIONS: SFM in distal colectomy increased operative time without decreasing overall complications or AL. Routine splenic flexure mobilization may add risk without significant benefit.

Practice Variation in Vena Cava Filter Use Among Trauma Centers in the National Trauma Database.

BACKGROUND: Agreement regarding indications for vena cava filter (VCF) utilization in trauma patients has been in flux since the filter's introduction. As VCF technology and practice guidelines have evolved, the use of VCF in trauma patients has changed. This study examines variation in VCF placement among trauma centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (2005-2014). Trauma centers were grouped according to whether they placed VCFs during the study period (VCF+/VCF-). A multivariable probit regression model was fit to predict the number of VCFs used among the VCF+ centers (the expected [E] number of VCF per center). The ratio of observed VCF placement (O) to expected VCFs (O:E) was computed and rank ordered to compare interfacility practice variation. RESULTS: In total, 65,482 VCFs were placed by 448 centers. Twenty centers (4.3%) placed no VCFs. The greatest predictors of VCF placement were deep vein thrombosis, spinal cord paralysis, and major procedure. The strongest negative predictor of VCF placement was admission during the year 2014. Among the VCF+ centers, O:E varied by nearly 500%. One hundred fifty centers had an O:E greater than one. One hundred sixty-nine centers had an O:E less than one. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in practice is present in VCF placement. This variation cannot be explained only by the characteristics of the patients treated at these centers but could be also due to conflicting guidelines, changing evidence, decreasing reimbursement rates, or the culture of trauma centers.