INTRODUCTION:The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted health-care delivery and hospital financials. This study aims to identify the pandemic's effects on costs associated with nonelective major lower extremity amputation (LEA) and mediating factors influencing this cost. METHODS:The 2019-2021 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database was queried for adult patients who underwent nonelective LEA. Patient inflation-adjusted costs were collected. Florida COVID-19 mortality rates established 9-month COVID-heavy (CH) and COVID-light (CL) timeframes, compared to a 9-month pre-COVID (PC; 2019) timeframe. Simple mediation analysis with 2000 bootstrapping interactions evaluated patient comorbidity, surgical complications, and hospital treatment factors as potential mediators on cost. RESULTS:A total of 5963 patients were included (1957 PC, 1994 CH, 2012 CL). Compared to PC, COVID timeframes had significantly increased total (+7.8%), hospital (+14.5%), intensive care unit (+14.3%), and operating room (+14.9%) costs. Simple mediation analysis identified potential influencers of increased cost: (1) acute kidney injury during CL (P = 0.03), (2) sepsis during CL (P = 0.02), and (3) electrolyte/acid-base disorders during CH and CL (P < 0.01). Sensitivity analysis (E-values) could not exclude unmeasured confounding from the model findings. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial cost increases associated with nonelective major LEAs, but simple mediation analysis did not identify sensitive mediators to cost. This suggests systemic factors, such as supply chain disruptions and staffing shortages, may warrant investigation. The pandemic highlighted the need for resilient health-care systems that can address both acute and chronic care needs while mitigating inequities exacerbated by crises.

BACKGROUND:The impact of different phases of COVID-19 infection on outcomes from acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is not well understood. Therefore, we examined outcomes of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing the effect of different treatment modalities and COVID-19 infection status. We hypothesized that patients with acute COVID-19 would have worse outcomes than COVID-negative patients, but there would be no difference between COVID-negative and COVID-recovered patients. METHODS:We used 2020-2023 National COVID Cohort Collaborative data to identify adults with ACC. Treatment (antibiotics-only, cholecystostomy tube, or cholecystectomy) and COVID-19 status (negative, active, or recovered) were collected. Treatment failure of nonoperative managements was noted. Adjusted analysis using a series of generalized linear models controlled for confounders (age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, severity at presentation, and year) to better assess differences in outcomes among treatment groups, as well as between COVID-19 groups. RESULTS:In total, 32,433 patients (skewed count) were included: 29,749 COVID-negative, 2112 COVID-active, and 572 (skewed count) COVID-recovered. COVID-active had higher rates of sepsis at presentation. COVID-negative more often underwent cholecystectomy. Unadjusted, COVID-active had higher 30-day mortality, 30-day complication, and longer length of stay than COVID-negative and COVID-recovered. Adjusted analysis revealed cholecystectomy carried lower odds of mortality for COVID-active and COVID-negative patients than antibiotics or cholecystostomy. COVID-recovered patients' mortality was unaffected by treatment modality. Treatment failure from antibiotics was more common for COVID-negative patients. CONCLUSION:Acute cholecystitis outcomes are affected by phase of COVID-19 infection and treatment modality. Cholecystectomy does not lead to worse outcomes for COVID-active and COVID-recovered patients than nonoperative treatments; thus, these patients can be considered for cholecystectomy if their physiology is not prohibitive.

BACKGROUND:Firearm-related death rates continue to rise in the US. As some states enact more permissive firearm laws, we sought to assess the relationship between a change to permitless open carry (PLOC) and subsequent firearm-related death rates, a currently understudied topic.STUDY DESIGN:Using state-level data from 2013 to 2021, we performed a linear panel analysis using a state fixed-effects model. We examined total firearm-related death, suicide, and homicide rates separately. If a significant association between OC law and death rate was found, we then performed a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis to assess for a causal relationship between changing to PLOC and increased death rate. For significant DID results, we performed confirmatory DID separating firearm and nonfirearm death rates.RESULTS:Nineteen states maintained a no OC or permit-required law, whereas 5 changed to permitless and 26 had a PLOC before 2013. The fixed-effects model indicated more permissive OC law that was associated with increased total firearm-related deaths and suicides. In DID, changing law to PLOC had a significant average treatment effect on the treated of 1.57 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.09) for total suicide rate but no significant average treatment effect for the total firearm-related death rate. Confirmatory DID results found a significant average treatment effect on the treated of 1.18 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.46) for firearm suicide rate.CONCLUSIONS:OC law is associated with total firearm-related death and suicide rates. Based on our DID results, changing to PLOC is indeed strongly associated with increased suicides by firearm.

Baclcground: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated changes in processes of care, which significantly impacted surgical care. This study evaluated the impact of these changes on patient outcomes and costs for non-elective major lower extremity amputations (LEA). Methods: The 2019 - 2021 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database was queried for adult patients who under went non-elective major LEA. Per -patient inflation-adjusted costs were collected. Patient cohorts were established based on Florida COVID-19 mortality rates: COVID-heavy (CH) included nine months with the highest mortality, COVID-light (CL) included nine months with the lowest mortality, and pre-COVID (PC) included nine months before COVID (2019). Outcomes included in -hospital patient outcomes and hospitalization cost. Results: 6132 patients were included (1957 PC, 2104 CH, and 2071 CL). Compared to PC, there was increased patient acuity at presentation, but morbidity (31%), mortality (4%), and length of stay (median 12 [8 - 17] days) were unchanged during CH and CL. Additionally, costs significantly increased during the pandemic; median total cost rose 9%, room costs increased by 16%, ICU costs rose by 15%, and operating room costs rose by 15%. When COVID-positive patients were excluded, cost of care was still significantly higher during CH and CL. Conciusions: Despite maintaining pre-pandemic standards, as evidenced by unchanged outcomes, the pandemic led to increased costs for patients undergoing non-elective major LEA. This was likely due to increased patient acuity, resource strain, and supply chain shortages during the pandemic. Key message: While patient outcomes for non-elective major lower extremity amputations remained consistent during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare costs significantly increased, likely due to increased patient acuity and heightened pressures on resources and supply chains. These findings underscore the need for informed policy changes to mitigate the financial impact on patients and healthcare systems for future public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND:Patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) are disadvantaged in terms of access to health care. A novel metric for SES is the Distressed Communities Index (DCI). This study evaluates the effect of DCI on hospital choice and distance traveled for surgery. METHODS:A Florida database was queried for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis or chronic cholecystitis who underwent an outpatient cholecystectomy between 2016 and 2019. Patients' DCI was compared with hospital ratings, comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and distance traveled for surgery. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine which factors most influenced distance traveled for surgery. RESULTS:There were 54,649 cases-81 open, 52,488 laparoscopic, and 2,080 robotic. There was no difference between surgical approach and patient's DCI group (p = 0.12). Rural patients traveled the farthest for surgery (avg 21.29 miles); urban patients traveled the least (avg 5.84 miles). Patients from distressed areas more often had surgery at one- or two-star hospitals than prosperous patients (61% vs 36.3%). Regression indicated distressed or at-risk areas predicted further travel for rural/small-town patients, while higher hospital ratings predicted further travel for suburban/urban patients. DISCUSSION:Compared to prosperous areas, patients from distressed areas have surgery at lower-rated hospitals, travel further if they live in rural/small-town areas, but travel less if they live in suburban areas. We postulate that farther travel in rural areas may be explained by a lack of health care resources in poor, rural areas, while traveling less in suburban areas may be explained by personal lack of resources for patients with low SES.

Pre-existing cirrhosis is associated with increased mortality in blunt liver injury. Despite widespread use of nonoperative management (NOM) for blunt liver injury, there is a relative paucity of data regarding how pre-existing cirrhosis impacts the success of NOM. Herein, we perform a retrospective cohort study using ACS TQIP 2017-2020 data to assess the relationship between cirrhosis and failure of NOM for adult patients with blunt liver injury. 37,176 patients were included (342 cirrhosis and 36,834 without cirrhosis). After propensity-score matching, patients with pre-existing cirrhosis had higher rates of failure of NOM (32.2 vs 14.1%, p < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (36.3 vs 10.8%, p < 0.01) than patients without cirrhosis. Hesitancy to operate on patients with pre-existing cirrhosis and trauma, as well as significant underlying coagulopathy, may explain these findings.

In evidence-based medicine, systematic review continues to carry the highest weight in terms of quality and reliability, synthesizing robust information from previously published cohort studies to provide a comprehensive overview of a topic. Meta-analysis provides further depth by allowing for comparative analysis between the studied intervention and the control group, providing the most up-to-date evidence on their characteristics and efficacy. We discuss the principles and methodology of meta-analysis, and its applicability to the field of surgical research. The clinical question is defined using PICO framework (Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Then a systematic article search is performed across multiple medical databases using relevant search terms, which are then filtered out based on appropriate screening tools. Pertinent data from the selected articles are collected and undergo critical appraisal by at least two independent reviewers. Additional statistical tests may be performed to identify the presence of any significant bias. The data are then synthesized to perform comparative analysis between the intervention and comparison groups. In this article, we discuss specifically the usage of R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) for data analysis and visualization. Meta-analysis results of the pooled data are presented using forest plots. Concerns for potential bias may be addressed through the creation of funnel plots. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool to provide highly reliable medical evidence. It may be readily performed by independent researchers with minimal need for funding or institutional approval. The ability to conduct such studies is an asset to budding medical scholars.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic caused significant stress on healthcare systems leading to altered care processes (i.e. – altered treatment algorithms, supply shortages, as well as personnel shortages). However, the effect of COVID and subsequent altered care processes on many surgical outcomes has not been characterized. In particular, patient outcomes after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) have not been well reported. Using COVID prevalence as a surrogate for altered processes of care, our aim is to determine changes in COVID-negative patient outcomes following EVAR for rAAA.MethodsUsing the Center for Disease Control COVID-19 data, COVID mortality per three-month quarter was calculated in Florida. The quarters with the three highest mortality rates and three lowest mortality rates were used to establish COVID-heavy (CH) and COVID-light (CL) timeframes, respectively. Three quarters of 2019 were used for the pre-COVID (PC) timeframe for comparison. The Florida AHCA database was queried using ICD-10 codes to identify patients diagnosed with rAAA who underwent EVAR during each timeframe. COVID-positive patients were excluded. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and length of stay (LOS). Stepwise linear and logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation determined which factors most impacted primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included individual complication rates.ResultsThere were 316 patients included. There were no significant differences in surgical volume, demographics, or comorbidities except that more patients had peripheral vascular disease in CL compared to PC (p=0.01). Mortality, LOS, and complications were not significantly different per timeframe on univariable analysis. Regression confirmed that timeframe was not significantly associated with any primary outcome.ConclusionDespite increased stress on the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic, outcomes following EVAR for rAAA were unchanged in Florida. These results imply that despite periods of COVID-heavy stress on the healthcare system, patient care was maintained at the pre-COVID standard of care.

INTRODUCTION:Identifying contributors to lung transplant survival is vital in mitigating mortality. To enhance individualized mortality estimation and determine variable interaction, we employed a survival tree algorithm utilizing recipient and donor data. METHODS:United Network Organ Sharing data (2000-2021) were queried for single and double lung transplants in adult patients. Graft survival time <7 d was excluded. Sixty preoperative and immediate postoperative factors were evaluated with stepwise logistic regression on mortality; final model variables were included in survival tree modeling. Data were split into training and testing sets and additionally validated with 10-fold cross validation. Survival tree pruning and model selection was based on Akaike information criteria and log-likelihood values. Estimated survival probabilities and log-rank pairwise comparisons between subgroups were calculated. RESULTS:A total of 27,296 lung transplant patients (8175 single; 19,121 double lung) were included. Stepwise logistic regression yielded 47 significant variables associated with mortality. Survival tree modeling returned six significant factors: recipient age, length of stay from transplant to discharge, recipient ventilator duration post-transplant, double lung transplant, recipient reintubation post-transplant, and donor cytomegalovirus status. Eight subgroups consisting of combinations of these factors were identified with distinct Kaplan-Meier survival curves. CONCLUSIONS:Survival trees provide the ability to understand the effects and interactions of covariates on survival after lung transplantation. Individualized survival probability with this technique found that preoperative and postoperative factors influence survival after lung transplantation. Thus, preoperative patient counseling should acknowledge a degree of uncertainty given the influence of postoperative factors.

Objective: This review introduces interpretable predictive machine learning approaches, natural language processing, image recognition, and reinforcement learning methodologies to familiarize end users. Background: As machine learning, artificial intelligence, and generative artificial intelligence become increasingly utilized in clinical medicine, it is imperative that end users understand the underlying methodologies. Methods: This review describes publicly available datasets that can be used with interpretable predictive approaches, natural language processing, image recognition, and reinforcement learning models, outlines result interpretation, and provides references for in-depth information about each analytical framework. Results: This review introduces interpretable predictive machine learning models, natural language processing, image recognition, and reinforcement learning methodologies. Conclusions: Interpretable predictive machine learning models, natural language processing, image recognition, and reinforcement learning are core machine learning methodologies that underlie many of the artificial intelligence methodologies that will drive the future of clinical medicine and surgery. End users must be well versed in the strengths and weaknesses of these tools as they are applied to patient care now and in the future.

Background: A 2023 Cochrane review showed no difference in bleeding/wound infection complications, short-term mortality and aneurysm exclusion between the percutaneous and cutdown approach for femoral access in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In contrast, single -center studies have shown bilateral cutdown resulting in higher readmission rates due to higher rates of groin wound infections. Whether 30 -day readmission rates vary by type of access during EVAR procedures is unknown. The goal of this study was to ascertain which femoral access approach for EVAR is associated with the lowest risk of 30 -day readmission. Methods: The Targeted Vascular Module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing EVAR for aortic disease from 2012-2021. All ruptures and other emergency cases were excluded. Cohorts were divided into bilateral cutdown, unilateral cutdown, failed percutaneous attempt converted to open and successful percutaneous access. The primary 30 -day outcomes were unplanned readmission and wound complications. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test, Chi -Square test and the Student's t -test. Multivariable analysis was performed using logistic regression. Results: From 2012 to 2021, 14,002 patients met study criteria. Most (7,395 [53%]) underwent completely percutaneous access, 5,616 (40%) underwent bilateral cutdown, 849 (6%) underwent unilateral cutdown, and 146 (1%) had a failed percutaneous access which was converted to open. Unplanned readmissions by access strategy included 7.6% for bilateral cutdown, 7.3% for unilateral cutdown, 7.8% for attempted percutaneous converted to cutdown, and 5.7% for completely percutaneous access ( P < 0.001, Figure 1). After multivariable analysis, unplanned readmissions compared to percutaneous access yielded: percutaneous converted to cutdown adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.38, 95% CI [0.76-2.53], P = 0.29; unilateral cutdown AOR: 1.18, 95% CI [0.92-1.51], P = 0.20; bilateral cutdown AOR: 1.26, 95% CI [1.09-1.43], P = 0.001. Bilateral cutdown was also associated with higher wound complications compared to percutaneous access (AOR: 4.41, CI [2.86-6.79], P < 0.001), as was unilateral cutdown (AOR: 3.04, CI [1.46-6.32], P = 0.003). Conclusions: Patients undergoing cutdown for EVAR are at higher risk for 30-day readmission compared to completely percutaneous access. If patient anatomy allows for percutaneous EVAR, this access option should be prioritized.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery remains the mainstay of treating foregut pathologies. Several studies have shown improved outcomes with the robotic approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs (HHR) and Heller myotomy (HM) repairs is needed. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched for studies published between January 2010 and November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Assessed outcomes included intra- and postoperative outcomes. We pooled the dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to report odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs and continuous data to report mean difference and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-two comparative studies enrolling 196,339 patients were included. Thirteen (13,426 robotic and 168,335 laparoscopic patients) studies assessed HHR outcomes, whereas 9 (2,384 robotic and 12,225 laparoscopic patients) assessed HM outcomes. Robotic HHR had a nonsignificantly shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference -0.41, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.05), fewer conversions to open (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.49), and lower morbidity rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23). Robotic HM led to significantly fewer esophageal perforations (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.83), reinterventions (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.47) a nonsignificantly shorter LOS (mean difference -0.31, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.00). Both robotic HM and HHR had significantly longer operative times. CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic and robotic HHR and HM repairs have similar safety profiles and perioperative outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the 2 methods, given the low-to-moderate quality of included studies. ((c) 2024 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The surgical robot is assumed to be a fixed, indirect cost. We hypothesized rising volume of robotic bariatric procedures would decrease cost per patient over time. Patients who underwent elective, initial gastric bypass (GB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for morbid obesity were selected from Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database from 2017 to 2021. Inflation-adjusted cost per patient was collected. Cost-over-time ($/patient year) and change in cost-over-time were calculated for open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Linear regression on cost generated predictive parameters. Density plots utilizing area under the curve demonstrated cost overlap. Among 76 hospitals, 11,472 bypasses (223 open, 6885 laparoscopic, 4364 robotic) and 36,316 sleeves (26,596 laparoscopic, 9724 robotic) were included. Total cost for robotic was approximately 1.5-fold higher ( p < 0.001) than laparoscopic for both procedures. For GB, laparoscopic had lower total ($15,520) and operative ($6497) average cost compared to open (total $17,779; operative $9273) and robotic (total $21,756; operative $10,896). For SG, laparoscopic total cost was significantly less than robotic ($10,691 vs. $16,393). Robotic GB cost-over-time increased until 2021, when there was a large decrease in cost (−$944, compared with 2020). Robotic SG total cost-over time fluctuated, but decreased significantly in 2021 (−$490 compared with 2020). While surgical costs rose significantly in 2020 for bariatric procedures, our study suggests a possible downward trend in robotic bariatric surgery as total and operative costs are decreasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic costs.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2023.07.011.].

Janjua, Haroon M MSc; Rogers, Michael P MD; Grimsley, Emily A MD; Read, Meagan MD; Kuo, Paul C MD, MS, MBA, FACS Author Information

BACKGROUND Previous studies on nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis (AA) indicated comparable outcomes to surgery, but the effect of COVID-19 infection on appendicitis outcomes remains unknown. Thus, we evaluate appendicitis outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine the effect of COVID-19 infection status and treatment modality. We hypothesized that active COVID-19 patients would have worse outcomes than COVID-negative patients, but that outcomes would not differ between recovered COVID-19 and COVID-negative patients. Moreover, we hypothesized that outcomes would not differ between nonoperative and operative management groups, regardless of COVID-19 status. METHODS We queried the National COVID Cohort Collaborative from 2020 to 2023 to identify adults with AA who underwent operative or NOM. COVID-19 status was denoted as follows: COVID-negative, COVID-active, or COVID-recovered. Intention to treat was used for NOM. Propensity score–balanced analysis was performed to compare outcomes within COVID groups, as well as within treatment modalities. RESULTS A total of 37,868 patients were included: 34,866 COVID-negative, 2,540 COVID-active, and 460 COVID-recovered. COVID-active and recovered less often underwent operative management. Unadjusted, there was no difference in mortality between COVID groups for operative management. There was no difference in rate of failure of NOM between COVID groups. Adjusted analysis indicated, compared with operative, NOM carried higher odds of mortality and readmission for COVID-negative and COVID-active patients. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates higher odds of mortality among NOM of appendicitis and near equivalent outcomes for operative management regardless of COVID-19 status. We conclude that NOM of appendicitis is associated with worse outcomes for COVID-active and COVID-negative patients. In addition, we conclude that a positive COVID test or recent COVID-19 illness alone should not preclude a patient from appendectomy for AA. Surgeon clinical judgment of a patient's physiology and surgical risk should, of course, inform the decision to proceed to the operating room. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

The use of robotic technology in general surgery continues to increase, though its utility for emergency general surgery remains under-studied. This study explores the current trends in patient outcomes and cost of robotic emergency general surgery (REGS). The Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration database (2018–2020) was queried for adult patients undergoing intra-abdominal emergency general surgery within 24 h of admission and linked to CMS Cost Reports/Hospital Compare, American Hospital Association, and Rand Corporation Hospital datasets. Patients from the four most common REGS procedures were propensity matched to laparoscopic equivalents for hospital cost analysis. A telephone survey was performed with the top 10 REGS hospitals to identify key qualities for successful REGS programs. 181 hospitals (119 REGS, 62 non-REGS) performed 60,733 emergency surgeries. Six-percent were REGS. The most common REGS were cholecystectomy, appendectomy, inguinal and ventral hernia repairs. Before and after propensity matching, total cost for these four procedures were significantly higher than their laparoscopic equivalents, which was due to higher surgical cost as the non-operative costs did not differ. There were no differences in mortality, individual complications, or length of stay for most of the four procedures. REGS volume significantly increased each year. The survey found that 8/10 hospitals have robotic-trained staff available 24/7. Although REGS volume is increasing in Florida, cost remains significantly higher than laparoscopy. Given higher costs and lack of significantly improved outcomes, further study should be undertaken to better inform which specific patient populations would benefit from REGS.