Are there differences in outcome after elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease and for cancer? A national inpatient study.

AIM: The postoperative outcome after elective sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis has not been compared to that for cancer. The study aimed to evaluate the differences in the postoperative outcome after sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease and cancer. METHOD: The National Inpatient Sample Database was used to identify patients who underwent elective sigmoid resection for diverticular disease or cancer between 2004 and 2011. After excluding patients with metastatic cancer and preoperative weight loss, sigmoid cancer and diverticulitis patients were matched using propensity score, controlling for age, gender, race, type of operation (open vs laparoscopic) and comorbidities. The end-points of interest were infective complications, reoperation, anastomotic leakage, rebleeding, length of hospital stay and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: After propensity score matching (diverticulitis 11 192 patients, sigmoid cancer 11 192 patients), the mean age was 65 ± 12.5 years, 53.8% were male and 61.5% were Caucasian. Only 18.0% of the operations were done by laparoscopy. The overall complication rate was 17.7% and the in-hospital mortality rate was 0.9%. The diverticulitis group had a higher rate of surgical site infection (3.2% vs 2.6%, P = 0.004), intra-abdominal abscess formation (1.2% vs 0.4%, P < 0.0001) and reoperation (6.1% vs 4.1%, P < 0.0001) compared with the cancer group. The cancer group had a higher incidence of pneumonia (1.9% vs 1.5%, P = 0.01) and anastomotic leakage (9.2% vs 8.3%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, respiratory failure, renal failure, rebleeding, overall complication rate or length of hospital stay. Subgroup analysis showed a higher in-hospital mortality for cancer than for diverticulitis patients whether resected by open or by laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSION: Although elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease has a higher risk of infective complications, elective sigmoidectomy for cancer has a higher risk of anastomotic leakage.

Age and mortality after injury: is the association linear?

INTRODUCTION: Multiple studies have demonstrated a linear association between advancing age and mortality after injury. An inflection point, or an age at which outcomes begin to differ, has not been previously described. We hypothesized that the relationship between age and mortality after injury is non-linear and an inflection point exists. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis at our urban level I center from 2007 through 2009. All patients aged 65 years and older with the admission diagnosis of injury were included. Non-parametric logistic regression was used to identify the functional form between mortality and age. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to explore the association between age and mortality. Age 65 years was used as the reference. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1,107 patients were included in the analysis. One-third required intensive care unit (ICU) admission and 48 % had traumatic brain injury. 229 patients (20.6 %) were 84 years of age or older. The overall mortality was 7.2 %. Our model indicates that mortality is a quadratic function of age. After controlling for confounders, age is associated with mortality with a regression coefficient of 1.08 for the linear term (p = 0.02) and a regression coefficient of -0.006 for the quadratic term (p = 0.03). The model identified 84.4 years of age as the inflection point at which mortality rates begin to decline. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death after injury varies linearly with age until 84 years. After 84 years of age, the mortality rates decline. These findings may reflect the varying severity of comorbidities and differences in baseline functional status in elderly trauma patients. Specifically, a proportion of our injured patient population less than 84 years old may be more frail, contributing to increased mortality after trauma, whereas a larger proportion of our injured patients over 84 years old, by virtue of reaching this advanced age, may, in fact, be less frail, contributing to less risk of death.

Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of disability in bicycle riders. Preventive measures including bicycle helmet laws have been highlighted; however, its protective role has always been debated. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of bicycle helmets in prevention of intra-cranial hemorrhage. We hypothesized that bicycle helmets are protective and prevent the development of intra-cranial hemorrhage. METHODS: We performed a 4-year (2009-2012) retrospective cohort analysis of all the patients who presented with traumatic brain injury due to bicycle injuries to our level 1 trauma center. We compared helmeted and non-helmeted bicycle riders for differences in the patterns of injury, need for intensive care unit admissions and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 864 patients were reviewed of which, 709 patients (helmeted = 300, non-helmeted = 409) were included. Non-helmeted bicycle riders were more likely to be young (p < 0.001) males (p = 0.01). There was no difference in the median ISS between the two groups (p = 0.3). Non-helmeted riders were more likely to have a skull fracture (p = 0.01) and a scalp laceration (p = 0.01) compared to the helmeted riders. There was no difference in intra-cranial hemorrhage between the two groups (p = 0.1). Wearing a bicycle helmet was not independently associated (p = 0.1) with development of intra-cranial hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Bicycle helmets may have a protective effect against external head injury but its protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable. Further studies assessing the protective role of helmets for intra-cranial hemorrhage are warranted.