Search

The ratio of hernia size to fascial defect size, termed the hernia-to-neck ratio (HNR), has been proposed as a novel predictive factor for umbilical hernia complications. HNR ≥ 2.5 has been suggested to warrant surgery due to association with bowel strangulation, incarceration, and necrosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between HNR and emergent ventral hernia repair at our institution.A retrospective cohort study was performed of consecutive patients with ventral hernias evaluated at a large safety-net hospital from 2017 to 2019. Patients who required emergent ventral hernia repair were compared to patients who did not require repair at latest follow-up. HNR was calculated using a previously described method: maximal hernia sac size and maximal fascial defect size (termed "hernia neck size") were measured in the sagittal plane on CT scan. Data are described as mean ± standard deviation and median (interquartile range).A total of 166 patients were included: 84 (51%) required emergent hernia repair and 82 (49%) did not undergo repair. Median follow-up was 19 (8-27) months. Patient groups were similar except the emergent repair group had more males (50% vs. 34%, p = 0.03), umbilical hernias (93% vs. 56%, p 0.01), recurrent hernias (31% vs. 15%, p 0.01), and lower mean BMI (34.3 ± 9.9 vs. 39.1 ± 6.5, p 0.01). Hernia sac size did not differ between groups (5.8 [3.8-8.4] cm vs. 6.1 [3.5-11.8] cm, p = 0.45). Hernia neck size was significantly smaller in the emergent repair group (1.5 [2.3-3.5] cm vs. 3.4 [1.8-6.2] cm, p 0.01). Hernia-to-neck ratio was significantly higher in the emergent repair group (2.4 [1.8-3.1] vs. 1.7 [1.1-2.9], p 0.01).This study demonstrated an association between higher HNR and increased risk of emergent ventral hernia repair. Future studies will evaluate the use of HNR to risk-stratify patients with ventral hernias in a safety-net hospital.

Purpose ChatGPT is a large language model trained on a large dataset covering a broad range of topics, including the medical literature. We aim to examine its accuracy and reproducibility in answering patient questions regarding bariatric surgery. Materials and methods Questions were gathered from nationally regarded professional societies and health institutions as well as Facebook support groups. Board-certified bariatric surgeons graded the accuracy and reproducibility of responses. The grading scale included the following: (1) comprehensive, (2) correct but inadequate, (3) some correct and some incorrect, and (4) completely incorrect. Reproducibility was determined by asking the model each question twice and examining difference in grading category between the two responses. Results In total, 151 questions related to bariatric surgery were included. The model provided “comprehensive” responses to 131/151 (86.8%) of questions. When examined by category, the model provided “comprehensive” responses to 93.8% of questions related to “efficacy, eligibility and procedure options”; 93.3% related to “preoperative preparation”; 85.3% related to “recovery, risks, and complications”; 88.2% related to “lifestyle changes”; and 66.7% related to “other”. The model provided reproducible answers to 137 (90.7%) of questions. Conclusion The large language model ChatGPT often provided accurate and reproducible responses to common questions related to bariatric surgery. ChatGPT may serve as a helpful adjunct information resource for patients regarding bariatric surgery in addition to standard of care provided by licensed healthcare professionals. We encourage future studies to examine how to leverage this disruptive technology to improve patient outcomes and quality of life. Graphical Abstract

Background Few bariatric surgery programs exist at safety net hospitals which often serve patients of diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. A bariatric surgery program was developed at a large urban safety net medical center serving a primarily Hispanic population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety, feasibility, and first-year outcomes to pave the way for other safety net bariatric programs. Methods The bariatric surgery program was started at a safety net hospital located in a neighborhood with over twice the national poverty rate. A retrospective review was performed for patient demographics, comorbidities, preoperative diet and exercise habits, perioperative outcomes, and 1-year outcomes including percent total weight lost (%TWL) and comorbidity reduction. Results A total of 153 patients underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy from May 2017 through December 2019. The average preoperative BMI was 47.9kg/m2, and 54% of patients had diabetes. The 1-year follow-up rate was 94%. There were no mortalities and low complication rates. The average 1-year %TWL was 22.8%. Hypertension and diabetes medications decreased in 52% and 55% of patients, respectively. The proportion of diabetic patients with postoperative HbA1c

Background Physical distancing required by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has limited traditional in-person resident education. We present our novel online curriculum for incorporation into traditional surgical educational programs. Methods The online curriculum utilized weekly sub-specialty themed faculty and resident created lectures, ABSITE practice questions, and weekly sub-specialty synchronized readings. Attendance, resident and faculty surveys, and completed ABSITE practice questions evaluated for curriculum success. Curriculum was adapted as COVID-19 clinical restructuring ended. Results 77% and 80% of clinical residents attended faculty lectures and resident led topic discussions as compared to 66% and 48% attending traditional in-person grand rounds and SCORE curriculum (both p > 0.05). 71.9% of residents and 16.6% of faculty reported improved resident participation while none reported decreased levels of participation (p, Highlights • Online educational platforms are useful and effective tools for the acquisition and application of knowledge. • Successful knowledge acquisition requires multimodal approach. • Resident driven educational sessions can empower residents to take change of their education. • Online educational platforms can facilitate sharing of knowledge across large distances.

Lateral abdominal wall hernias are rare defects but, due to their location, repair is difficult, and recurrence is common. Few studies exist to support a standard protocol for repair of these lateral hernias. We hypothesized that anchoring our repair to fixed bony structures would reduce recurrence rates. A retrospective review of all patients who underwent lateral hernia repair at our institution was performed. Eight cases (seven flank and one thoracoabdominal) were reviewed. The median defect size was 105 cm2 (range 36–625 cm2). The median operative time was 185 min (range 133–282 min). There were no major complications. One patient who was repaired without mesh attachment to bony landmarks developed a recurrence at ten months and subsequently underwent reoperation. Patients with mesh secured to bony landmarks were recurrence free at a median follow-up of 171 days. Lateral hernias present a greater challenge due to their anatomic location. An open technique with mesh fixation to bony structures is a promising solution to this complex problem.

Background Body mass index (BMI) thresholds are utilized as a preoperative optimization strategy for obese patients prior to elective abdominal wall hernia repair. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of patients at our institution who ultimately underwent hernia repair after initial deferral due to BMI and to evaluate outcomes of those who required emergent repair during the deferral period. Methods A retrospective review was performed from 2016 to 2018 to identify all patients with abdominal wall hernias who were deferred surgery due to BMI. Patient characteristics, hernia type, change in BMI, progression to surgery, acuity of surgery (elective or emergent), and postoperative outcomes were examined. Results 200 patients were deferred hernia repair due to BMI. Of these, 150 (75%) did not undergo repair over a mean period of 27 months. The remaining 50 patients ultimately underwent repair, 36 of which (72%) were elective and 14 (28%) emergent. The mean initial BMI of the elective group was 35.3 ± 1.8, compared to 39.1 ± 5.3 in the no surgery group and 40.6 ± 8.2 in the emergent group ( P < .01). While the elective group lost weight before surgery, the other groups did not. Patients who required emergent surgery had worse outcomes than those repaired electively. Conclusions Preoperative weight loss is unsuccessful in most obese patients presenting for abdominal wall hernia repair at our institution. Patients who required emergent hernia repair had worse outcomes than those who underwent elective repair. Our institution’s BMI threshold is a failed optimization strategy that needs to be reconsidered.

Clinically, complication rates of brachial arterial catheterization appear to far exceed those of the radial or common femoral arteries. The study objective was to define the complication rate after brachial arterial line insertion. All patients undergoing arterial line placement to the brachial artery in the surgical intensive care units (SICUs) at our institution were retrospectively identified and included in the study (January 2016-December 2018). Demographics, complications (distal ischemia, thrombosis/dissection, brachial sheath hematoma, catheter-related sepsis, and inadvertent dislodgement), and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Over the study period, 53 patients underwent brachial arterial catheterization. Common admitting services were cardiothoracic surgery (n = 31, 58%), transplant surgery (n = 7, 13%), and neurosurgery (n = 4, 7%). The mean age was 55 ± 17 58 (24-84) years, and 58% (n = 31) were male. The hospital length of stay (LOS) was 37 ± 35 23 (1-132) days, and ICU LOS was 30 ± 27 20 (1-127) days. Mortality was 57% (n = 30). Complications of brachial arterial line placement occurred in 21 patients (40%). In summary, brachial arterial catheters were associated with high mortality and prolonged ICU length of stay. This likely reflects the critically ill nature of patients in whom conventional-site arterial line placement is not possible. Complications following brachial arterial catheterization were unacceptably high. On this basis, we recommend that the brachial artery be avoided whenever possible for arterial line placement in the SICU.

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is discouraged after bariatric surgery. The effect of NSAIDs on patients who have undergone sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is not well studied. Moreover, the rate of NSAID use after SG is unknown.To determine the rate of NSAID use after SG, and its associated complications.A single institution, multi-surgeon, academic, tertiary care hospital.We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent SG between January 1, 2014, and November 1, 2017. A phone interview was conducted with identified patients. The inclusion criteria were any patient who had undergone SG during the study period, and there were no exclusion criteria.We identified 421 SG patients for inclusion. There were 231 phone surveys completed, with 64.5% of respondents reporting some NSAID use after SG. Of the respondents who used NSAIDs, 40.3% reported that they used the drugs often (once/wk), 28.2% reported occasional use (once/mo butonce/wk), and 31.5% reported rare use (once/mo). Nearly 26% of phone interview respondents regularly used NSAIDs after SG. A retrospective review of the 421-patient cohort revealed 0 cases of sleeve complications secondary to NSAID use when searching for incidences of bleeding, ulceration, gastritis, gastropathy, perforation, leak, or stenosis.NSAID use in our bariatric surgery population is high despite an institutional policy to prohibit their use across all bariatric patients. Despite the high incidence of NSAID use in our patient population, we could not identify a single case of an NSAID-induced gastrointestinal complication in our retrospective review. NSAID use after SG may be a safe and viable pain management strategy that needs further evaluation.

Objective: In 2010, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) published a new clinical practice guideline on trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) that was considered less restrictive. It allowed for offering TOLAC to women with two prior cesarean deliveries, even without a prior vaginal delivery, and for labor induction. As a result, our hospital, a public tertiary care academic center, updated our TOLAC practice guideline to reflect ACOG's new recommendations. We thus aim to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes for women undergoing TOLAC with 1 versus 2 prior cesareans, with and without a prior vaginal delivery, following these clinical practice changes at our hospital.Study design: This was a secondary analysis of a 2-year retrospective cohort following implementation of a hospital guideline in women undergoing TOLAC with a live, cephalic, singleton without lethal anomaly ≥24 0/7 weeks and 1 or 2 prior cesarean deliveries. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with one prior cesarean were compared to women with two prior cesareans. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity (uterine rupture, uterine dehiscence, hysterectomy, transfusion, postpartum venous thromboembolism, delivery/surgical injury, chorioamnionitis or endometritis, shoulder dystocia, death). Secondary outcomes included neonatal morbidity. The analysis was performed in SAS; p < .05 was considered significant.Results: Seven hundred women with one prior cesarean and 73 women with two prior cesareans underwent TOLAC after the 2011 guideline implementation. Post guideline maternal demographics, labor length, comorbid conditions, simplified Bishop score, and induced labor were similar between groups. Composite maternal morbidity was similar between groups (18.3 versus 23.3%, p = .30 for women with 1 versus 2 prior cesarean deliveries, respectively). The same was true when comparing women with 1 versus 2 prior cesareans who had never had a prior vaginal delivery (25.5 versus 33.3%, p = .28 for 1 versus 2 prior cesarean deliveries, respectively). There were no differences in neonatal outcomes. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) success rates were similar between groups (78.9% in women with 1 prior cesarean versus 74.0% in women with 2 prior cesareans, p=.33), even when only analyzing women without a prior vaginal delivery (69.4% in women with 1 prior cesarean versus 71.4% in women with 2 prior cesareans, p = .78).Conclusion: Adoption of ACOG's TOLAC practice changes, specifically offering TOLAC to women with two prior cesareans even without a prior vaginal delivery, and offering induction of labor regardless of cervical favorability, may increase VBAC rates without increasing maternal or neonatal morbidity from TOLAC.

To evaluate maternal-neonatal morbidity for women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) following clinical practice changes based upon ACOG's 2010 VBAC guideline.Four-year retrospective cohort analysis around implementation of a hospital guideline in women undergoing TOLAC with a live, cephalic, singleton without lethal anomaly ≥24 weeks and ≥1 prior cesarean. Maternal-neonatal outcomes pre- and post-guideline implementation were compared. Primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity (uterine rupture or dehiscence, hysterectomy, transfusion, thromboembolism, operative/delivery injury, chorioamnionitis/endometritis, shoulder dystocia, death). Secondary outcomes included neonatal morbidity.Four hundred and fifty women underwent TOLAC before and 781 after guideline implementation. Post-guideline, there was a significant increase in age, body mass index, labor length, women with1 cesarean, comorbid condition and induced labor. Composite maternal morbidity was significantly higher after the guideline (13.78% versus 18.82%, p = 0.02), possibly due to an increased rate of chorioamnionitis/endometritis, which was no longer significant after control for potential confounders in multivariable analysis. There were no differences in neonatal outcomes. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) success rates were unchanged (78.9% before versus 78.1% after, p = 0.75), however hospital VBAC rates increased after the guideline (26% versus 33%, p 0.0001).Adoption of ACOG's TOLAC practice changes can increase VBAC rates without increasing maternal-neonatal morbidity from TOLAC.

To compare induction of labor methods in patients attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) with an unfavorable cervix.This is a retrospective cohort study from patients attempting TOLAC from 2009 to 2013. Patients with a simplified Bishop score of three or less where labor was initiated with either a Cook balloon or oxytocin were included. Our primary outcome was mode of delivery. Our secondary outcomes included duration of labor and multiple maternal and neonatal morbidities.Two-hundred and fourteen women met inclusion criteria: 150 received oxytocin and 64 had the Cook balloon placed. The vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rate was significantly higher in the oxytocin group at 70.7% versus 50.0% in the Cook balloon group (p = 0.004). In the multivariable analysis, odds for cesarean delivery were two times higher with the Cook balloon than with oxytocin (Adjusted OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.05-4.18, p = 0.036). The duration of labor was longer with the Cook balloon versus oxytocin (21.9 versus 16.3 hours, p = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in maternal and neonatal health outcomes.Oxytocin induction of labor was associated with a higher rate of vaginal delivery and a shorter duration of labor compared to the Cook balloon in women undergoing TOLAC with an unfavorable cervix.