Morbidity Following Coloanal Anastomosis: A Comparison of Colonic J-Pouch vs Straight Anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: Low rectal tumors are often treated with sphincter-preserving resection followed by coloanal anastomosis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term complications following straight coloanal anastomosis vs colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis. DESIGN: Patients were identified who underwent proctectomy for rectal neoplasia followed by coloanal anastomosis in the 2008 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Demographic characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between groups. SETTINGS: A national sample was extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. PATIENTS: Inpatients following proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred seventy patients were included, 624 in the straight anastomosis group and 746 in the colonic J-pouch group. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, with the exception of preoperative radiation therapy (straight anastomosis 35% vs colonic J-pouch 48%, p = 0.0004). Univariate analysis demonstrated that deep surgical site infection (3.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.01), septic shock (2.25% vs 0.8%, p = 0.04), and return to the operating room (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0006) were more frequent in the straight anastomosis group vs the colonic J-pouch group. Major complications were also higher (23% vs 14%, p = 0.0001) and length of stay was longer in the straight anastomosis group vs the colonic J-pouch group (8.9 days vs 8.1 days, p = 0.02). After adjusting for covariates, major complications were less following colonic J-pouch vs straight anastomosis (OR, 0.57; CI, 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of patients who received preoperative radiation therapy demonstrated no difference in major complications between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study had those limitations inherent to a retrospective study using an inpatient database. CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications were less following colonic J-pouch anastomosis vs straight anastomosis. Patients who received preoperative radiation had similar rates of complications, regardless of the reconstructive technique used following low anterior resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A468.

The relationship between timing of surgical complications and hospital readmission.

IMPORTANCE: Readmissions after surgery are costly and may reflect quality of care in the index hospitalization. OBJECTIVES: To determine the timing of postoperative complications with respect to hospital discharge and the frequency of readmission stratified by predischarge and postdischarge occurrence of complications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of national Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program preoperative risk and outcome data on the Surgical Care Improvement Project cohort for operations performed from January 2005 to August 2009, including colorectal, arthroplasty, vascular, and gynecologic procedures. The association between timing of complication with respect to index hospitalization and 30-day readmission was modeled using generalized estimating equations. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: All-cause readmission within 30 days of the index surgical hospitalization discharge. RESULTS Our study of 59 273 surgical procedures performed at 112 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals found an overall complication rate of 22.6% (predischarge complications, 71.9%; postdischarge complications, 28.1%). The proportion of postdischarge complications varied significantly, from 8.7% for respiratory complications to 55.7% for surgical site infection (P < .001). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 11.9%, of which only 56.0% of readmissions were associated with a currently assessed complication. Readmission was predicted by patient comorbid conditions, procedure factors, and the occurrence of postoperative complications. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models of readmission adjusting for patient and procedure characteristics, hospital, and index length of stay found that the occurrence of postdischarge complications had the highest odds of readmission (odds ratio, 7.4-20.8) compared with predischarge complications (odds ratio, 0.9-1.48). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: More than one-quarter of assessed complications are diagnosed after hospital discharge and strongly predict readmission. Hospital discharge is an insufficient end point for quality assessment. Although readmission is associated with complications, almost half of readmissions are not associated with a complication currently assessed by the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces length of stay and readmissions after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) before colorectal resection has been shown to reduce surgical site infections. We examined whether OABP decreases length of stay (LOS) and readmissions for colorectal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study used national Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program preoperative risk and outcomes data linked to Veterans Affairs Administrative and Pharmacy Benefits Management data on patients undergoing elective colorectal resections from 2005 to 2009. Exclusion criteria were preoperative LOS >2 days, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 5, or death before discharge. Patient and surgery characteristics, bowel preparation use, presence of an ostomy, indication for surgery, and indication for readmission using ICD-9 codes were determined. Negative binomial regression was used to model LOS. Logistic regression analyses modeled 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Of the 8,180 patients, 1,161 (14.2%) were readmitted within 30 days. Length of stay and readmissions varied significantly by bowel preparation, procedure, presence of an ostomy, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Oral antibiotic bowel preparation was associated with a below-median postoperative LOS (negative binomial regression estimate = -0.1159; p < 0.0001) and fewer 30-day readmissions (adjusted odds ratio = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.97). Overall, 4.9% were readmitted for infections (ICD-9 codes) and this varied by bowel preparation (no preparation 6.1%, mechanical 5.4%, OABP 3.9%; p = 0.001). The readmission rate for noninfectious reasons was 9.3% and did not differ significantly by bowel preparation (no preparation 9.9%, mechanical 9.6%, OABP 8.8%; p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is associated with shorter postoperative LOS and lower 30-day readmission rates, primarily due to fewer readmissions for infections. Prospective studies are needed to verify these results.

Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce surgical site infection following elective colorectal resections.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection is a major cause of morbidity after colorectal resections. Despite evidence that preoperative oral antibiotics with mechanical bowel preparation reduce surgical site infection rates, the use of oral antibiotics is decreasing. Currently, the administration of oral antibiotics is controversial and considered ineffective without mechanical bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics and their relationship to surgical site infection rates in a colorectal Surgical Care Improvement Project cohort. DESIGN: This retrospective study used Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program preoperative risk and surgical site infection outcome data linked to Veterans Affairs Surgical Care Improvement Project and Pharmacy Benefits Management data. Univariate and multivariable models were performed to identify factors associated with surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in 112 Veterans Affairs hospitals. PATIENTS: Included were 9940 patients who underwent elective colorectal resections from 2005 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measured was the incidence of surgical site infection. RESULTS: Patients receiving oral antibiotics had significantly lower surgical site infection rates. Those receiving no bowel preparation had similar surgical site infection rates to those who had mechanical bowel preparation only (18.1% vs 20%). Those receiving oral antibiotics alone had an surgical site infection rate of 8.3%, and those receiving oral antibiotics plus mechanical bowel preparation had a rate of 9.2%. In adjusted analysis, the use of oral antibiotics alone was associated with a 67% decrease in surgical site infection occurrence (OR=0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.50). Oral antibiotics plus mechanical bowel preparation was associated with a 57% decrease in surgical site infection occurrence (OR=0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.55). Timely administration of parenteral antibiotics (Surgical Care Improvement Project-1) had a modest protective effect, with no effect observed for other Surgical Care Improvement Project measures. Hospitals with higher rates of oral antibiotics use had lower surgical site infection rates (R = 0.274, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Determination of the use of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation is based on retrospective prescription data, and timing of actual administration cannot be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Use and type of preoperative bowel preparation varied widely. These results strongly suggest that preoperative oral antibiotics should be administered for elective colorectal resections. The role of oral antibiotics independent of mechanical bowel preparation should be examined in a prospective randomized trial.

Association between Surgical Care Improvement Program venous thromboembolism measures and postoperative events.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Surgical Care Improvement Program (SCIP) implemented measures to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE). There are little data on whether these measures reduce VTE rates. This study proposed to examine associations between SCIP-VTE adherence and VTE rates. METHODS: SCIP-VTE adherence for 30,531 surgeries from 2006 to 2009 was linked with VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical characteristics associated with VTE were summarized. VTE rates were compared by SCIP-VTE adherence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model VTE by adherence, adjusting for multiple associated factors. RESULTS: Of 30,531 surgeries, 89.9% adhered to SCIP-VTE; 1.4% experienced VTE. Logistic regression identified obesity, smoking, functional status, weight loss, emergent status, age older than 64 years, and surgical time as associated with VTE. SCIP-VTE was not associated with VTE (1.4% vs 1.33%; P = .3), even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several important risk factors for VTE but found no association with SCIP-VTE adherence.

Outcomes for incisional hernia repair in patients undergoing concomitant surgical procedures.

The safety and efficacy of performing concomitant surgical procedures with an incisional hernia repair (IHR) is not well understood. There are conflicting reports on the outcomes for permanent mesh implantation in the setting of clean-contaminated procedures. The purpose of this study was to review the effect of concomitant surgical procedures on IHR outcomes. This is a retrospective multisite cohort of patients undergoing elective IHR at 16 Veterans Affairs hospitals from 1998 to 2002. Concomitant procedure status, hernia characteristics, and operative details were determined using physician-abstracted operative notes. Hernia outcomes of recurrence and mesh explantation were determined from the medical chart. χ(2) tests, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression were used to evaluate the effects of concomitant status on hernia outcomes. Of the 1495 elective IHRs, 75 (4.8%) were same site and 56 (3.8%) different site concomitant procedures. At median follow-up of 69.3 months (range 19.1-98.3), 33.6 per cent of patients had a recurrence, mesh explantation, or both. Permanent mesh placement was less likely among concomitant procedures as compared with nonconcomitant procedures (P < 0.0001). Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models of hernia outcomes resulted in an increased hazard for recurrence among same site clean procedures (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.8, P = 0.03) and an increased hazard for mesh explantation among same site clean-contaminated procedures (HR = 8.4, P = 0.002). Concomitant same site procedures are significantly associated with adverse hernia outcomes as compared with isolated IHR or IHR with other site concomitant procedures. The high failure rate of hernia repairs among same site concomitant procedures should be taken into account during the surgical decision-making process.

The incidence and timing of noncardiac surgery after cardiac stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: In November 2007, national guidelines were released recommending delay of elective noncardiac surgery after cardiac revascularization with drug eluting stents (DES) for 12 months compared with 6 weeks after implantation of bare metal stents (BMS). STUDY DESIGN: To determine the incidence of noncardiac surgery within 24 months after stent placement, national VA data on cardiac stent implantation were merged with data from the VA National Surgery Office and Medicare. Using chi-square tests and log-rank analyses, we measured the incidence of noncardiac surgery after BMS and DES in relation to guideline release and surgical characteristics. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2010, 126,773 stent procedures were followed by 25,977 (20.5%) noncardiac operations within 24 months. Overall, 11.8% of the BMS surgery cohort had early surgery (less than 6 weeks) compared with 46.7% of the DES surgery cohort, which had early surgery (less than 12 months). The incidence of surgery differed significantly by stent type (BMS 24.1% vs DES 17.5%, p < 0.001) and in relation to guideline release (pre- 24.6% vs postguideline 13.1%, p < 0.001). Higher complexity operations (work relative value units) were more likely to occur in the early period for both BMS (p < 0.0001) and DES (p < 0.003). After guideline release, the incidence of surgery within 12 months decreased from 16.7% to 10.0% (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that guidelines recommending delaying surgery appear to be effective in decreasing the incidence of early surgery; however, early surgery is still a frequent occurrence. Additional research is needed to better define the risk of cardiac and bleeding complications in patients undergoing subsequent noncardiac surgery, as well as the optimal time for surgery and method of antiplatelet management.

Descriptive operative reports: teaching, learning, and milestones to safe surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Few tasks are more ingrained within the minds of practicing surgeons than the dictation of the narrative report of an operation. However, the construct of these reports varies widely among surgeons and is rarely formally taught and not tested formally during surgical training or board certification. DESIGN: A cohort of patients undergoing incisional hernia repair (IHR) over a 5-year period from 16 academically affiliated Veterans' Administration (VA) hospitals was identified. Technical details of the operative approach were obtained only from operative notes. Frequency of missing elements was analyzed by postgraduate year of the resident. RESULTS: Overall, 1367 IHR operative reports were analyzed, comprising 456 (33%) suture repairs, 802 (59%) open mesh repairs, 97 (7%) laparoscopic repairs, and 12 (1%) where repair type could not be determined. Hernia size in any dimension was absent in 63.5% of dictations and was similar regardless of PGY, (54%, 56%, 71%, 67%, and 66% for PGY 1-5, respectively). Among the 906 mesh repairs, 65% failed to mention the mesh size. This absence was similar across PGY (64%, 69%, 65%, 66%, and 68% for PGY 1-5, respectively), and attending reports were only marginally better, with mesh size absent in 57% of reports. In the 456 cases repaired by suture alone, 76% did not record the type of suture used with significant variation by PGY (78%, 59%, 87%, 89%, and 69% for PGY 1-5, attending - 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Resident dictation of the operative report represents an opportunity to understand current cognitive deficits regarding the procedure and to allow for intervention. Future studies to validate that internalization of the cognitive aspects of operations can be measured by audit of operative notes are needed. These endeavors will ensure that not only the technical but also the mental guides to safe surgery are acquired.

Outcomes of emergent incisional hernia repair.

This study examines the effect of emergent repair on incisional hernia repair outcomes at 16 Veteran's Affairs Medical Centers between 1998 and 2002. Of the 1452 cases reviewed, 63 (4.3%) were repaired emergently. Patients undergoing emergent repair were older (P = 0.02), more likely to be black (P = 0.02), and have congestive heart failure (P = 0.001) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.001). Of emergent repairs, 76.2 per cent involved intestinal incarceration versus 7.2 per cent of elective repairs (P < 0.0001), and 17.5 per cent had concomitant bowel resection compared with 3.9 per cent of elective cases (P < 0.0001). Patients undergoing emergent repair were also more likely to receive primary suture repair (49.2 vs 31.1%, P = 0.003), develop a postoperative complication (26.0 vs 11.3%, P = 0.002), and have increased postoperative length of stay (7 vs 4 days, P < 0.0001). There were nine (14.3%) deaths at 30 days for the emergent group compared with 10 (0.7%) in the elective group (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between emergent and elective repairs in long-term complications. Emergent hernia repair is associated with increased mortality rates, early complications, and longer length of stay; however, long-term outcomes are equivalent to elective cases. These data suggest that technical outcomes for emergent repairs approach those of elective operations.

Agreement between patient survey and medical chart: Pitfalls in measurement strategies for hernia recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Little information is available on agreement between patient-reported outcomes and data collected from medical chart abstraction (MCA) for recurring events. Recurring conditions pose a risk of misclassification, especially when events occur relatively close together in time. We examined agreement, predictors of agreement, and relative accuracy of patient survey and MCA for assessment of outcomes of incisional hernia repair (IHR). METHODS: Surveys to assess hernia outcomes were mailed to 1,124 living patients who underwent ≥ 1 IHR during 1998-2002 at 16 Veteran's Affairs Medical Center study sites. Patients were asked if they developed a recurrence or an infection at their hernia site. Physician-abstracted data from the medical chart were compared with patient response. Chi-square tests were used to assess significance. RESULTS: Of 487 (43.3%) individuals responding to the survey, 33 (6.8%) with >1 re-repair during 1998-2002 and 98 (20.5%) with a repair before the 1998-2002 period were excluded from the analysis. Although recurrence rates derived from self-reported data and data abstracted from the medical chart were similar (29.3% and 26.1%, respectively), overall concordance was low. Only 49% (n = 54) of self-reported recurrences were confirmed by data abstracted from the medical chart. In addition, 16 (8.3%) recurrences abstracted from the medical chart were not reported by the patient. Factors associated with discordance were high reported pain intensity (P = .02), poorer general health (P = .03), and poorer perceived repair results (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Multiple recurrences and subsequent operations across the study period complicate the interpretation of both patient response and data abstracted from the medical chart when referring to a hernia repair. Further study on how best to assess treatment outcomes for recurring conditions is warranted.

Pay, pride, and public purpose: why America's doctors should support universal healthcare.

Discussion of universal healthcare is nothing new for US politicians or among reform advocates, policy experts, or the general public. Physicians, however, have been minor voices in the discussion. Their relative silence has been detrimental both to the public and to physicians themselves. We pose 3 arguments as to why physicians should support universal access grounded in medicine's own self-interest, arguments that are largely ignored in the current debate. These are: (1) the need for paying patients, (2) the need for a sense of self-esteem rooted in professionalism rather than commercialism, and (3) the urgency to affirm a public purpose for medicine by promoting the nation's health through universal care. Who has a stake in universal healthcare? Some groups, such as those lacking insurance, are obviously at risk and have a keen interest. Others, such as insured workers, have a less obvious but demonstrable concern. Arguments that urge adoption of an inclusive system typically focus on "healthcare horror stories" designed to evoke sympathy for the unfortunate persons whose lives are forever changed by unmet health needs or unpaid health bills. Our focus is different. We ask, regarding universal healthcare, "What's in it for physicians?" While the active support of doctors may not be a sufficient force to change the US system, it is probably a necessary one. At a minimum, universal coverage will be far less likely if physicians are opposed to it. Our aim here is to explore and discuss some of the reasons that should motivate active physician involvement in a more just and equitable system. We will discuss 3 reasons in particular. They are: (1) the need for paying patients; (2) the need to take pride in what one does--that is, the need to be nurtured by recognition of skillful professional performance in medical work, and not just rewarded monetarily; and (3) the importance of embracing a public purpose for medicine and thus engaging the trust and esteem of the population. We will examine each of these in turn, but first we will discuss briefly the other constituencies for universal coverage, since their reasons for supporting an inclusive system are often shared by doctors.