Infection prevention plan to decrease surgical site infections in bariatric surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are one of the most common complications of bariatric surgery. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement (QI) Program (MBSAQIP) allows accredited programs to develop processes for quality improvement based on data collection. The objective of this study was to decrease SSI rates in patients undergoing bariatric surgery at an accredited MBSAQIP center. METHODS: Using the MBSAQIP semiannual report, SSI rates were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline SSI rates were collected from 01/01/2014-12/31/2015. On 01/01/2016, the first infection prevention protocol (IPP-1) was created that included 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) showers, CHG wipes immediately prior to surgery, and routine cultures of SSIs. An updated IPP (IPP-2) was implemented on 09/01/2016, which discontinued routine surgical drain placement and broadened antibiotic coverage for penicillin allergic patients. RESULTS: During baseline data collection, SSI rates were 5.1%. After the implementation of IPP-1, SSI rates trended down to 2.5%. After implementation of IPP-2, SSI rates decreased significantly to 1.5%, a 66% relative risk reduction in SSIs from baseline. On multivariate regression analysis, the perioperative factors associated with an increased risk for SSIs included diabetes mellitus, intraoperative surgical drain placement, the number of hypertension medications prior to bariatric surgery, and an open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the implementation of a specific protocol for reducing SSIs is safe and feasible in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We also identified that the success of the IPP is likely centered on the elimination of routine drain placement during primary bariatric procedures.

Understanding the Current Role of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in bariatrics remains controversial. Patient selection for robotic surgery is not well-studied. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with robotic surgery and its temporal trends. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2018 was used. Adult patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) using the laparoscopic or robotic approach were identified. Revisional, hybrid, or those with concomitant procedures were excluded. Logistic regression was conducted to identify factors associated with undergoing robotic-assisted surgery. RESULTS: Among 211,568 patients who underwent SG, 9.1% underwent a robotic SG; among 76,805 patients who underwent RYGB, 7.9% of patients underwent a robotic RYGB. During 2015-2018, robotics increased from 7.1 to 11.3% for SG and 7.4 to 8.6% for RYGB. After controlling for patient characteristics, there was still an increasing trend in the use of robotic surgery: SG (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio, aOR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.17-1.20) and RYGB (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08). For both robotic SG and RYGB, functional status and African American race were associated with undergoing robotic surgery, while races other than White or African American and Hispanic ethnicity were not. Pre-operative IVC filter was associated with robotic SG, while the presence of GERD, diabetes, and COPD were associated with robotic RYGB. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic bariatric surgery has increased over time. Our findings identified factors associated with the receipt of robotic surgery. Reasons for these factors require further investigation to better delineate indications for this technology.

Assessment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after bariatric surgery using a validated questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is known to occur after bariatric surgery, with over two thirds of patients affected. However, variability exists in how to objectively measure PONV. OBJECTIVES: The goals of the present study were to use a validated, patient-centered scoring tool, the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching to measure the severity of PONV after bariatric surgery, to directly compare PONV between patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and to identify risk factors for the development of PONV after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America. METHODS: The Washington University Weight Loss Surgery team prospectively surveyed patients from January 1, 2017 to December 1, 2018 at the following 6 different timepoints: postoperative day (POD) 0, POD 1, POD 2, POD 3 to 4, the first postoperative outpatient visit (POV 1: POD 5-25), and the second postoperative visit (POV 2: POD 25-50). At each timepoint, a cumulative Rhodes score was calculated from the sum of 8 questions. The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was used to collect patient demographic characteristics and perioperative clinical data. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients met study criteria and completed 605 Rhodes questionnaires. Two hundred fifty Rhodes questionnaires were completed by patients after SG and 355 were completed by patients after LRYGB. Total Rhodes scores are statistically higher in LSG patients compared with patients who underwent LRYGB (LSG = 5.45 ± 6.27; LRYGB = 3.08 ± 4.19, P = .0002). Additionally, at the earlier timepoints, scores were higher among patients who underwent LSG than those who had undergone LRYGB as follows: POD 0 (LSG = 6.96 ± 6.50; LRYGB = 2.89 ± 2.90, P = .0115), POD 1 (LSG = 8.20 ± 6.76; LRYGB = 2.88 ± 3.44, P < .0001), and POD 2 (LSG = 4.05 ± 4.88; LRYGB = 2.06 ± 3.43, P = .05). On subset analysis, examining patients who either underwent an LSG or LRYGB, both procedures had a statistically significant PONV peak emerge on POV 2. Last, overall Rhodes scores were statistically higher in female patients compared with male patients (female: 4.43 ± 5.46; male: 2.35 ± 3.90, P = .021). Although the magnitude of the difference varied somewhat across POD time intervals, the difference was most pronounced at POV 2. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study using a validated nausea and vomiting questionnaire to objectively measure PONV after bariatric surgery. The factors found to be most associated with increased PONV were LSG and female sex. Ultimately, these data can help bariatric surgery programs, including Washington University Weight Loss Surgery, identify patients who may require more intensive treatment of PONV, particularly POD 0 to 2, and help to identify patients that continue to struggle with PONV in the later surgical recovery phase.