Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The existence of sociodemographic disparities in pancreatic cancer has been well-studied but how these disparities have changed over time is unclear. The purpose of this study was to longitudinally assess patient management in the context of sociodemographic factors to identify persisting disparities in pancreatic cancer care. METHODS:Using the National Cancer Database, patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017 were identified. The primary outcomes were surgical resection and/or receipt of chemotherapy. Outcome measures included changes in associations between sociodemographic factors (i.e., sex, age, race, comorbidity index, SES, and insurance type) and treatment-related factors (i.e., clinical stage at diagnosis, surgical resection, and receipt of chemotherapy). For each year, associations were assessed via univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS:Of 75,801 studied patients, the majority were female (51%), White (83%), and had government insurance (65%). Older age (range of OR 2010-2017 [range-OR]:0.19-0.29), Black race (range-OR: 0.61-0.78), lower SES (range-OR: 0.52-0.94), and uninsured status (range-OR: 0.46-0.71) were associated with lower odds of surgical resection (all p < 0.005), with minimal fluctuations over the study period. Older age (range-OR: 0.11-0.84), lower SES (range-OR: 0.41-0.63), and uninsured status (range-OR: 0.38-0.61) were associated with largely stable lower odds of receiving chemotherapy (all p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:Throughout the study period, age, SES, and insurance type were associated with stable lower odds for both surgery and chemotherapy. Black patients exhibited stable lower odds of resection underscoring the continued importance of mitigating racial disparities in surgery. Investigation of mechanisms driving sociodemographic disparities are needed to promote equitable care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:Operating rooms (ORs) are critical for hospital revenue and cost management, with utilization efficiency directly affecting financial outcomes. Traditional surgical scheduling often results in suboptimal OR use. We aim to build a machine learning (ML) model to predict incision times for robotic-assisted hysterectomies, enhancing scheduling accuracy and hospital finances. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective study was conducted using data from robotic-assisted hysterectomy cases performed between January 2017 and April 2021 across 3 hospitals within a large academic health system. Cases were filtered for surgeries performed by high-volume surgeons and those with an incision time of under 3 hours (n = 2,702). Features influencing incision time were extracted from electronic medical records and used to train 5 ML models (linear ridge regression, random forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, and explainable boosting machine [EBM]). Model performance was evaluated using a dynamic monthly update process and novel metrics such as wait-time blocks and excess-time blocks. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: < .001, 95% CI [-329 to -89]), translating to approximately 52-hours over the 51-month study period. The model predicted more surgeries within a 15% range of the true incision time compared to traditional methods. Influential features included surgeon experience, number of additional procedures, body mass index (BMI), and uterine size. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The ML model enhanced the prediction of incision times for robotic-assisted hysterectomies, providing a potential solution to reduce OR underutilization and increase surgical throughput and hospital revenue.

BACKGROUND:Health technology assessments (HTAs) of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) face several challenges in assessing the value of robotic surgical platforms. As a result of using different assessment methods, previous HTAs have reached different conclusions when evaluating RAS. While the number of available systems and surgical procedures is rapidly growing, existing frameworks for assessing MedTech provide a starting point, but specific considerations are needed for HTAs of RAS to ensure consistent results. This work aimed to discuss different approaches and produce guidance on evaluating RAS. METHODS:A consensus conference research methodology was adopted. A panel of 14 experts was assembled with international experience and representing relevant stakeholders: clinicians, health economists, HTA practitioners, policy makers, and industry. A review of previous HTAs was performed and seven key themes were extracted from the literature for consideration. Over five meetings, the panel discussed the key themes and formulated consensus statements. RESULTS:A total of ninety-eight previous HTAs were identified from twenty-five total countries. The seven key themes were evidence inclusion and exclusion, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, the learning curve, allocation of costs, appropriate time horizons, economic analysis methods, and robotic ecosystem/wider benefits. CONCLUSIONS:Robotic surgical platforms are tools, not therapies. Their value varies according to context and should be considered across therapeutic areas and stakeholders. The principles set out in this paper should help HTA bodies at all levels to evaluate RAS. This work may serve as a case study for rapidly developing areas in MedTech that require particular consideration for HTAs.

BACKGROUND:Conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery are generally examined in the limited scope of a particular procedure. However, for a hospital or payor, the cumulative impact of conversions during commonly performed procedures could have a much larger negative effect than what is appreciated by individual surgeons. The aim of this study is to assess open conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across common procedures using laparoscopic/thoracoscopic (LAP/VATS) and robotic-assisted (RAS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study using the Premier Database on patients who underwent common operations (hysterectomy, lobectomy, right colectomy, benign sigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, inguinal and ventral hernia repair, and partial nephrectomy) between January 2013 and September 2015. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to define procedures, modality, and conversion. Propensity scores were calculated using patient, hospital, and surgeon characteristics. Propensity-score matched analysis was used to compare conversions between LAP/VATS and RAS for each procedure. RESULTS:A total of 278,520 patients had MIS approaches of the ten operations. Conversion occurred in 5% of patients and was associated with a 1.77 day incremental increase in length of stay and $3441 incremental increase in cost. RAS was associated with a 58.5% lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to LAP/VATS. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:At a health system or payer level, conversion to open is detrimental not just for the patient and surgeon but also puts a significant strain on hospital resources. Use of RAS was associated with less than half of the conversion rate observed for LAP/VATS.

BACKGROUND:Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common surgical emergency, with a relatively stable yearly incidence. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, as New York City (NYC) emerged as the US epicenter, hospitals saw a marked reduction in patients presenting with non-COVID-related diseases. The objective of this study was to characterize the effects of the pandemic on the incidence, presentation, and management of AA. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of patients with AA who presented to two academic medical centers during the NYC COVID peak (March 22nd-May 31st, 2020) was performed. This group was compared to a control cohort presenting during the same period in 2019. Primary outcomes included the incidence of AA, complicated disease, and management. Secondary outcomes included duration of symptoms, hospital length of stay, and complication rates. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS:< .02). Hospital length of stay and complication rates were similar between years. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Significantly fewer AA patients presented during the initial phase of the pandemic. Patients presented later, which may have contributed to a higher proportion of complicated disease. Surgeons were also more likely to treat uncomplicated AA nonoperatively than they were prior. Further research is needed to understand the long-term consequences of these changes.

BACKGROUND:Elective paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients ≥ 65 years of age remains controversial. The widely cited Markov Monte Carlo decision analytic model recommends watchful waiting in this group, unless the mortality rate for elective repair was to reach ≤ 0.5%; at which point, surgery would become the optimal treatment. We hypothesized that with advances in minimally invasive surgery, perioperative care, and practice specialization, that mortality threshold has been reached in the contemporary era. However, the safety net would decrease as age increases, particularly in octogenarians. METHODS:We identified 12,422 patients from the 2015-2017 ACS-NSQIP database, who underwent elective minimally invasive PEH repair, of whom 5476 (44.1%) were with age ≥ 65. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), operative time, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, unplanned intubation, sepsis, bleeding requiring transfusion, readmission, and return to OR. RESULTS:Patients age ≥ 65 had a higher 30-day mortality (0.5% vs 0.2%; p < 0.001). Subset analysis of patients age 65-80 and > 80 showed a 30-day mortality of 0.4% vs. 1.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Independent predictors of mortality in patients ≥ 65 years were age > 80 (OR 5.23, p < 0.001) and COPD (OR 2.59, p = 0.04). Patients ≥ 65 had a slightly higher incidence of pneumonia (2% vs 1.2%; p < 0.001), unplanned intubation (0.8% vs 0.5%; p < 0.05), pulmonary embolism (0.7% vs 0.3%; p = 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion (1% vs 0.5%; p < 0.05), and LOS (2.38 vs 1.86 days, p < 0.001) with no difference in sepsis, return to OR or readmission. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This is the largest series evaluating elective PEH repair in the recent era. While morbidity and mortality do increase with age, the mortality remains below 0.5% until age 80. Our results support consideration for a paradigm shift in the management of patients < 80 years toward elective repair of PEH.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. METHODS:Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. RESULTS:One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. CONCLUSIONS:The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.