Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:In an era where telehealth is gaining traction within healthcare systems, its integration into preoperative assessment protocols presents both challenges and opportunities. Preoperative assessments have an important role in determining the best plan of action for each patient. Recent studies have reported adequate operative outcomes after telemedicine preoperative consultations. This study examines telehealth's efficacy relative to traditional in-person evaluations in the context of preoperative consultations for inguinal hernia repairs and provides a deeper insight into how telemedicine might be utilized for pre-surgical assessments. METHODS:We analyzed a prospectively maintained single-center database at a tertiary referral hospital with a dedicated hernia and abdominal wall reconstruction center for pre, intra and postoperative variables comparing patients that received telemedicine (phone or video) preoperative consultations versus in-person clinic visits only. Secondary analysis with propensity score matching was employed to adjust for possible confounders. RESULTS:265 patients that underwent inguinal hernia repair were included, with 60 encounters being telemedicine only and the rest in-person. This analysis found no difference in rates of postoperative complications between the telemedicine and in-person groups. The telemedicine group required less preoperative encounters with their surgeon (P < 0.001). In the preoperative in-person group, 41% switched to virtual follow-ups, while in the virtual group, only 18% chose in-person follow-ups (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Based on our analysis, the use of telemedicine for preoperative assessments in inguinal hernia repairs as a feasible and safe choice for patients opting for this approach, potentially reshaping the preoperative paradigm in surgical practices.

BACKGROUND:The clinical and financial impact of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair is significant. Here we investigate the impact of dual antibiotic irrigation on SSI after VHR. METHODS:This was a multicenter, prospective randomized control trial of open retromuscular VHR with mesh. Patients were randomized to gentamicin ​+ ​clindamycin (G ​+ ​C) (n ​= ​125) vs saline (n ​= ​125) irrigation at time of mesh placement. Primary outcome was 30-day SSI. RESULTS:No significant difference was seen in SSI between control and antibiotic irrigation (9.91 vs 9.09 ​%; p ​= ​0.836). No differences were seen in secondary outcomes: SSO (11.71 vs 13.64 ​%; p ​= ​0.667); 90-day SSO (11.1 vs 13.9 ​%; p ​= ​0.603); 90-day SSI (6.9 vs 3.8 ​%; p ​= ​0.389); SSIPI (7.21 vs 7.27 ​%, p ​= ​0.985); SSOPI (3.6 vs 3.64 ​%; p ​= ​0.990); 30-day readmission (9.91 vs 6.36 ​%; p ​= ​0.335); reoperation (5.41 vs 0.91 ​%; p ​= ​0.056). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Dual antibiotic irrigation with G ​+ ​C did not reduce the risk of surgical site infection during open retromuscular ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND:Surgical videos coupled with structured assessments enable surgical training programs to provide independent competency evaluations and align with the American Board of Surgery's entrustable professional activities initiative. Existing assessment instruments for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR) have limitations with regards to reliability, validity, and usability. A cross-sectional study of six surgeons using a novel objective, procedure-specific, 8-item competency assessment for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR-OPSA) was performed to assess inter-rater reliability using a "safe" vs. "unsafe" scoring rubric. METHODS:. RESULTS:The IHR-OPSA inter-rater reliability was good to excellent, ranging from 0.65 to 0.97 across the eight items. Assessments of robotic procedures had higher reliability with near perfect agreement for 7 of 8 items. In general, assessments of easier cases had higher levels of agreement than harder cases. CONCLUSIONS:A novel 8-item minimally invasive IHR assessment tool was developed and tested for inter-rater reliability using a "safe" vs. "unsafe" rating system with promising results. To promote instrument validity the IHR-OPSA was designed and evaluated within the context of intended use with iterative engagement with experts and testing of constructs against real-world operative videos.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Options for minimally invasive ventral hernia repair continue to evolve as a function of our understanding of the abdominal wall and the development of new techniques. We describe a robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair with concurrent rectus aponeuroplasty (TAPPRA) for incisional and recurrent ventral hernias. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:All patients in this retrospective cohort study underwent TAPPRA repair between October 2023 and March 2024. This study aimed to determine intraoperative feasibility of the technique and to assess immediate postoperative outcomes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Twelve patients underwent TAPPRA repair for incisional and/or recurrent ventral hernias at an academic hernia center. The median case duration was 135 min with no significant intraoperative complications noted. Average defect size for the hernias measures 6.5 × 8.5 cm. Polypropylene mesh was used to reinforce all defects, with the average dimensions being 19.7 × 21.5 cm. 83% of patients were discharged within 24 h of their procedure. No significant postoperative complications were noted. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:We describe the first use of a novel ventral hernia repair technique, TAPPRA, and demonstrate that it is safe, feasible, and associated with appropriate short-term outcomes for repair of moderate sized incisional hernias.

BACKGROUND:It is increasingly recognized that complex abdominal wall reconstruction (cAWR) necessitates specialized training. No studies have been conducted to assess whether a volume-outcomes relationship is present in cAWR. We sought to determine if outcomes for patients undergoing cAWR varied based on surgeon volume among participants in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC). METHODS:All patients with ventral hernias undergoing elective cAWR with component separation (lateral component release) were selected from ACHQC database. Surgeons were ranked based on annual number of cAWR procedures performed and then grouped in tertiles. Patient characteristics, hernia risk factors, operative details, and 30-days outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS:A total of 9206 patients were identified, of which 310 (3.4%), 723 (7.9%) and 8173 (88.7%) cAWRs were performed by low (105 surgeons), medium (49) and high-volume (66) surgeons, respectively. Patients operated upon by high-volume surgeons tended to have more comorbidities and higher ASA class (72.5% of class ≥ III, vs 53.5%). Hernia characteristics demonstrated that high-volume surgeons more commonly operated on patients presenting with recurrent hernias (50.2% vs 42%), wider hernias (13.5 cm vs 10.5 cm), associated ostomies (13% vs 3.6%), and prior of surgical site infections (32% vs 26%, P = 0.035). High-volume surgeons more commonly performed posterior component separation procedures (92% vs 84%), utilized permanent mesh (92% vs 88%), and placed mesh in sublay position. In spite of operating on more advanced hernias, high-volume surgeons achieved comparable rates (all P > 0.4) of 30-day surgical site infections (SSI: 6.9% vs 7.1%) and surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSO-PI: 8.9% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS:High-volume surgeons maintain comparable outcomes following cAWR despite performing operations on patients with more comorbidities and advanced hernia disease. These findings should be integrated into the debates related to regionalizing abdominal wall reconstruction procedures among high-volume surgeons.

BACKGROUND:Incisional hernia prevention strategies related to fascial closure technique during laparotomy are well described yet poorly implemented in practice. The factors hindering the surgeon's adoption of evidence-based techniques for fascial closure are poorly understood and characterized. METHODS:Using an exploratory sequential mixed methods design, we first collected 139 responses to a validated quantitative survey based on a Theoretical Domain Framework for adoption of healthcare practices. Mean scores from survey responses were tabulated, and the findings were used to develop an interview guide for subsequent qualitative individual semi-structured phone interviews. Fourteen practicing surgeons were purposively sampled from social media outlets and our institution. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim for coding and thematic analysis using NVivo 12 Plus. Data from the surveys and interviews were integrated using joint displays. RESULTS:Quantitative and qualitative analyses from surveys and semi-structured interviews revealed various themes related to surgeon decision-making related to fascial closure technique. Surgeons cited limitations of prior studies, applicability of findings, anecdotal experiences, and situation-specific environments that influence their decision-making. Peer influence and lack of training also affected surgeons' perspectives on integrating small bite technique into practice. CONCLUSION:Trial design limitations, peer influence, and patient-specific factors impacted surgeon decision-making in the choice of fascial closure technique. Future clinical trials in diverse patient populations may improve surgeons' confidence in implementing technique for fascial closure.

BACKGROUND:Though telemedicine has been identified as safe and feasible, data on patient reported experiences (PREs) are lacking. We sought to compare PREs between in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative care. METHODS:Patients evaluated from August-November 2021 were prospectively surveyed to assess experiences and satisfaction with care rendered during in-person and telemedicine-based encounters. Patient and hernia characteristics, encounter related plans, and PREs were compared between in-person and telemedicine-based care. RESULTS:Of 109 respondents (86% response rate), 55% (n = 60) utilized telemedicine-based perioperative care. Indirect costs were lower for patients using telemedicine-based services, including work absence (3% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), lost wages (0% vs. 14%, P = 0.003), and requirements for hotel accommodations (0% vs. 12%, P = 0.007). PREs related to telemedicine-based care were non-inferior to in-person care across all measured domains (P > 0.4). CONCLUSIONS:Telemedicine-based care yields significant cost-savings over in-person care with similar patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that systems should focus on optimization of perioperative telemedicine services.

BACKGROUND:Traditionally, surgical drains are considered a relative contraindication to telemedicine-based postoperative care. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of an at-home patient-performed surgical drain removal pilot program. METHODS:A prospective cohort study among patients who were discharged with surgical drains was performed. Patients discharged with drains were given the option for in-clinic, provider-performed removal, or at-home, patient-performed drain removal. Patient demographics, health characteristics, perioperative metrics, and operative outcomes were compared and analyzed. RESULTS:A total of 68 encounters with drain removal were included (at-home: 28%, n = 19; in-clinic: 72%, n = 49), with both groups having similar demographics, except for age (median age of telemedicine-based at-home: 50 vs in-clinic: 62 years, p = 0.03). Patients who opted into at-home, patient-performed drain removal were more likely to have drain removal occur earlier (9 vs 13 days for in-clinic, p < 0.001). In-clinic removal resulted in increased encounters with surgical nursing staff and increased travel time, with no significant difference in complication burden. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-performed at-home drain removal is safe and allows for more timely drain removal.