Risk factors for adverse outcomes following paraesophageal hernia repair among obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is an established risk factor for adverse outcomes after paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR), many obese patients nonetheless receive PEHR. The purpose of this study was to explore risk factors for adverse outcomes of PEHR among this high-risk cohort. We hypothesized that obese patients may have other risk factors for adverse outcomes following PEHR. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult obese patients who underwent minimally invasive PEHR from 2017 to 2019 was performed. Patients were excluded for BMI < 30 or if they had concomitant bariatric surgery at time of PEHR. The primary outcome of interest was a composite adverse outcome (CAO) defined as having any of the four following outcomes after PEHR: persistent GERD > 30 d, persistent dysphagia > 30 d, recurrence, or reoperation. Chi-square and t-test analysis was used to compare demographic and clinical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate independent predictors of CAO. RESULTS: In total, 139 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up of 19.7 months (IQR 8.8-81). Among them, 51/139 (36.7%) patients had a CAO: 31/139 (22.4%) had persistent GERD, 20/139 (14.4%) had persistent dysphagia, 24/139 (17.3%) had recurrence, and 6/139 (4.3%) required reoperation. On unadjusted analysis, patients with a CAO were more likely to have a history of prior abdominal surgery (86.3% vs 70.5%, p = 0.04) and were less likely to have undergone a preoperative CT scan (27.5% vs 45.5%, p = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, previous abdominal surgery was independently associated with an increased likelihood of CAO whereas age and preoperative CT scan had a decreased likelihood of CAO. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were adverse outcomes among obese patients, minimally invasive PEHR may be feasible in a subset of patients at specialized centers. These findings may help guide the appropriate selection of obese patients for PEHR.

The true meshing ratio of skin graft meshers.

Skin meshing is frequently used in the coverage of extensive burn injuries as well as other skin and soft tissue wounds. This technique allows coverage of more extensive areas with smaller donor sites and prevents fluid from collecting beneath the skin grafts. The devices used to achieve this expansion differ in their technology and the use of skin carriers. In addition, many of the devices permit meshing at single or multiple ratios depending upon the device chosen. Although commonly used, there have been few definitive studies analyzing the actual expansion ratios achieved by many of these devices. The purpose of this study was to measure the actual meshing ratios achieved using some of the most commonly used skin meshers. The authors used split-thickness cadaveric skin samples provided by the regional tissue bank to compare the area of skin both before and after meshing to determine the actual expansion ratio and compared that with the ratio claimed by the device manufacturer. For all ratios greater than 1:1, the extent of actual expansion was significantly less than that expected for each device (P < .001). In addition, using devices that claimed to yield increasingly greater expansion ratios resulted in increasingly greater discrepancies between the area predicted by the device manufacturer and the actual surface area of skin (P < .01). These findings suggest that there is great variability in the expected and observed expansion ratios achieved by skin graft meshing devices. This has significant applicability to practice as it is likely to affect surgical decisions related to estimating the extent of donor area needed to cover skin and soft tissue defects.