Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To examine whether the administration of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) was associated with reduced surgical site infections (SSIs), which in turn leads to a reduction of non-SSI-related postoperative complications. BACKGROUND:Administration of MBP/OABP before elective colectomy reduces the incidence of SSI. We hypothesized that reduction of SSI is on causal pathway between the use of MBP/OABP and the reduction of other postoperative complications. METHODS:The study population consisted of all colectomy cases in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted Participant Use Data File for 2012 and 2013. Postoperative outcomes were compared based on the type of bowel preparation: none, MBP only, OABP only, and MBP plus OABP adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS:The cohort included 19,686 patients. Of these 5060 (25.7%) patients did not receive any form of bowel preparation, 8020 (40.7%) received MBP only, 641 (3.3%) received OABP only, and 5965 (30.3%) received MBP plus OABP. Patients who received MBP plus OABP had a lower incidence of superficial SSI, deep SSI, organ space SSI, any SSI, anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, sepsis, readmission, and reoperation compared with patients who received neither (all P < 0.01). The reduction in SSI incidence was associated with a reduction in wound dehiscence, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, prolonged requirement of mechanical ventilator, sepsis, septic shock, readmission, and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS:Combined MBP plus OABP before elective colectomy was associated with reduced SSI, which ultimately was associated with a reduction in non-SSI-related complications.

Anastomotic leaks represent one of the most alarming complications following any gastrointestinal anastomosis due to the substantial effects on post-operative morbidity and mortality of the patient with long-lasting effects on the functional and oncologic outcomes. There is a lack of consensus related to the definition of an anastomotic leak, with a variety of options for prevention and management. A number of patient-related and technical risk factors have been found to be associated with the development of an anastomotic leak and have inspired the development of various preventative measures and technologies. The International Multispecialty Anastomotic Leak Global Improvement Exchange group was convened to establish a consensus on the definition of an anastomotic leak as well as to discuss the various diagnostic, preventative, and management measures currently available.

BACKGROUND:The incidence of anal cancer in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals is increasing, and how co-infection affects outcomes is not fully understood. This study sought to describe the current outcome disparities between anal cancer patients with and without HIV undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS:A retrospective review of all US patients diagnosed with anal squamous cell carcinoma, undergoing an APR, was performed. Cases were identified using a weighted derivative of the Healthcare Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample (2000-2011). Patients greater than 60 years old were excluded after finding a skewed population distribution between those with and without HIV infection. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear modeling analysis examined factors associated with postoperative outcomes and cost. Perioperative complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs were compared for those undergoing APR with and without HIV infection. RESULTS:A total of 1725 patients diagnosed with anal squamous cell cancer undergoing APR were identified, of whom 308 (17.9 %) were HIV-positive. HIV-positive patients were younger than HIV-negative patients undergoing APR for anal cancer (median age 47 years old versus 51 years old, p < 0.001) and were more likely to be male (95.1 versus 30.6 %, p < 0.001). Postoperative hemorrhage was more frequent in the HIV-positive group (5.1 versus 1.5 %, p = 0.05). Mortality was low in both groups (0 % in HIV-positive versus 1.49 % in HIV-negative, p = 0.355), and length of stay (LOS) (10+ days; 75th percentile of patient data) was similar (36.9 % with HIV versus 29.8 % without HIV, p = 0.262). Greater hospitalization costs were associated with patients who experienced a complication. However, there was no difference in hospitalization costs seen between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:HIV status is not associated with worse postoperative recovery after APR for anal cancer as measured by length of stay or hospitalization cost. Further study may support APRs to be used more aggressively in HIV-positive patients with anal cancer.

BACKGROUND:Perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection (APR) is associated with high complication rate and delayed healing. We aim to evaluate the risk factors for delayed wound healing and wound complications following APR. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent APR was performed. Non-delayed wound healing occurred within 6 weeks. Major complications included infection, necrosis, and dehiscence that required surgical interventions. Minor complications included drainage and superficial dehiscence that were treated conservatively. Patients were compared for type of wound closure (primary vs. flap reconstruction). Effect of patients' demographic and clinical variables on time to healing, and on major and minor wound complications was examined. RESULTS:215 patients were identified, of which 175 (81 %) had primary closure and 40 (19 %) had flap reconstruction. Overall, major wound complications occurred in 14 (7 %) of patients and minor wound complications occurred in 48 (22 %). Mean time to wound healing was 6.3 weeks in the primary closure group and 9.3 weeks in the flap reconstruction group (p = 0.02). Delayed wound healing occurred in 44 (25 %) of the primary closure group and in 25 (62 %) of the flap reconstruction group (p < 0.001). Delayed wound healing was associated with smoking (p = 0.005), hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.05), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.02), and flap reconstruction (p = 0.03). Hypoalbuminemia was associated with major wound complications (p = 0.002), while neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with minor wound complications (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Wound complications and delayed healing are related to patients' nutritional status, smoking, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with these risk factors are at risk of delayed wound healing even if they underwent flap reconstruction.

BACKGROUND:The surgical management of colitis-associated rectal cancer (CARC) is not well defined. This study determines outcomes after surgery for CARC compared with sporadic rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study comparing 27 patients with CARC with 54 matched patients with sporadic cancer. Matching criteria included age, gender, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage. Outcome measures were disease-free and overall survival, tumor characteristics, and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS:Compared to those with sporadic rectal cancer, patients with CARC underwent proctocolectomy more frequently (21 [78%] versus 6 [22%] P < 0.001) and were more likely to have mucinous tumors (11 [40.7%] versus 12 [22.3%] P = 0.03). Overall 3-y survival was significantly reduced in CARC patients compared with patients with sporadic rectal cancer. Those with CARC undergoing segmental proctectomy only demonstrated reduced overall and disease-free survival compared to patients with sporadic rectal cancer and to colitis patients undergoing proctocolectomy (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with CARC undergoing proctectomy demonstrate reduced disease-free survival versus those undergoing proctocolectomy, and versus patients with sporadic rectal cancer undergoing proctectomy. These findings warrant further study and suggest that proctocolectomy should be considered the preferred surgical approach for CARC.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:The perineal wound following abdominoperineal excision (APR) is associated with a high complication rate. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for wound complications and examine the effect of flap reconstruction on wound healing. METHOD/METHODS:The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was searched for patients who underwent APR for rectal adenocarcinoma. They were divided into two groups: primary closure of the perineal wound and flap reconstruction. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for deep surgical site infection (SSI) and wound dehiscence. RESULTS:A total of 8449 (94%) patients from the database underwent primary closure and 550 (6%) underwent flap reconstruction. Patients who underwent flap reconstruction had a longer operation time, a higher incidence of deep SSI, wound dehiscence, more blood transfusion requirement and a higher rate of return to the operating room (all P < 0.001). Risk factors for deep SSI were African American race (OR 1.5, P = 0.02), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification ≥ 4 (OR 3.2, P < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg/m(2) (OR 1.7, P = 0.006), weight loss (OR 2, P < 0.001) and closure with a flap (OR 1.9, P < 0.001). Risk factors for wound dehiscence included ASA classification ≥ 4 (OR 2.2, P = 0.003), history of smoking (OR 2.2, P < 0.001), history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.7, P = 0.03), BMI ≥ 35 kg/m(2) (OR 1.9, P = 0.001) and closure with a flap (OR 2.9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Perineal wound complications are related to a patient's race, ASA classification, smoking, obesity and weight loss. Compared with primary closure, closure with a flap was associated with higher odds of wound infection and dehiscence and was not protective of wound complications in the presence of other risk factors. Therefore optimizing the patient's medical condition will lead to a better outcome irrespective of the technique used for perineal wound closure.

IMPORTANCE:The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative was proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to obtain and reward a greater value of care. Still in its infancy, little is known regarding the potential effects of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative on hospital payments and net margins. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the potential effects of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative on net margins among Medicare patients undergoing colectomy at a tertiary care hospital. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Cross-sectional retrospective analysis conducted in October 2015. Medicare enrollees undergoing an elective colectomy at a large tertiary care hospital between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013, were identified using diagnosis-related group and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to calculate risk-adjusted, diagnosis-related group-specific hospital costs and payments for each patient. Net margins were calculated as the difference between total hospital costs and total payments received. RESULTS:A total of 821 Medicare enrollees underwent an elective colectomy and met inclusion criteria. The median age of patients was 69 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65-74 years), with 51.3% being female. Postoperative complications were observed among 27.5% of patients (n = 226) and the median length of stay was 8 days (IQR, 5-14 days). The median risk-adjusted cost among all patients was $24 951 (IQR, $16 197-$38 922). Risk-adjusted costs were higher among patients who developed a postoperative complication ($42 537 [IQR, $28 918-$72 316] vs $22 829 [IQR, $14 820-$26 150]; P < .001) and among patients with an observed to expected length of stay greater than 1 ($36 826 [IQR, $24 951-$65 016] vs $16 197 [IQR, $14 182-$23 998]; P < .001). The median payment under the fee-for-service structure was $29 603 (IQR, $17 742-$44 819), resulting in an overall net margin of $3177 (IQR, -$1692 to $10 773), with 33.7% of patients (n = 277) contributing to an overall negative margin. In contrast, under the bundled payment paradigm, the net margin per patient was $3442 (IQR, -$9311 to $8203), with 41.7% of patients (n = 342) contributing to a net negative margin. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Postoperative complications, length of stay, and total hospital costs were strongly associated with hospital costs. Payments under the bundled payments system were lower and the proportion of patients contributing to a net negative margin increased. Further study is warranted to define the effect of bundled payments on quality of care and hospital finances.

High volume hospitals (HVHs) and high volume surgeons (HVSs) have better outcomes after complex procedures, but the association between surgeon and hospital volumes and patient outcomes is not completely understood. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of surgeon and hospital volumes, and their interaction, on postoperative outcomes and costs in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration (PE) in the state of Maryland. A review of the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission database between 2000 and 2011 was performed. Patients were compared for demographics and clinical variables. The differences in length of hospital stay , length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, operating room (OR) cost, and total cost were compared for surgeon volume and hospital volume controlling for all other factors. Surgery performed by HVS at HVH had the shortest ICU stay and lowest OR cost. When PE was performed by a low volume surgeon at an HVH, the OR cost and total cost were the highest and increased by $2,683 (P < 0.0001) and $16,076 (P < 0.0001), respectively. OR costs reduced when surgery was performed by an HVS at an HVH ($-1632, P = 0.008). PE performed by HVS at HVH is significantly associated with lower OR costs and ICU stay. We feel this is indicative of lower complication rates and higher quality care.

BACKGROUND:Wound complications are frequent flowing abdominoperineal resection (APR); this can lengthen the time to chemotherapy. Flap reconstruction is being used in an attempt to improve wound healing. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of flap reconstruction after APR on time to perineal wound healing and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent APR for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2002 and 2012 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups based on type of perineal wound closure (primary vs. flap). Patients were compared for time to perineal wound healing, and time to adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS:115 patients were identified; of whom 67 received adjuvant chemotherapy. 56 (84%) patients underwent primary closure while 11 (16%) underwent flap reconstruction. There was no difference in time to perineal wound healing (6.8 vs. 6.3 weeks, p = 0.40) and time to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (9.3 vs. 10.7 weeks, p = 0.79) between the primary closure and flap reconstruction groups, respectively. 25 (45%) of the primary closure group had a delay in receiving adjuvant chemotherapy versus 6 (55%) of the flap reconstruction group (p = 0.55). Delay in receiving adjuvant chemotherapy because of perineal wound complications occurred in 18 (32%) patients with primary closure versus 3 (28%) patients with flap reconstruction (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS:Flap reconstruction does not reduce the length of time to initiating chemotherapy; there was no difference in length of healing between the two groups. Therefore, flap reconstruction should be selectively used based on the size of the perineal defect.