Purpose

The proportion of geriatric trauma patients (GTPs) (age ≥ 65 years old) with chest wall injury undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) nationally is unknown. We hypothesize a growing trend of GTPs undergoing SSRF, and sought to evaluate risk of respiratory complications and mortality for GTPs compared to younger adults (18-64 years old) undergoing SSRF.

Methods

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients with rib fracture(s) who underwent SSRF. GTPs were compared to younger adults. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.

Results

From 21,517 patients undergoing SSRF, 3,001 (16.2%) were GTPs. Of all patients undergoing SSRF in 2010, 10.6% occurred on GTPs increasing to 17.9% in 2016 (p < 0.001) with a geometric-mean-annual increase of 11.5%. GTPs had a lower median injury severity score (18 vs. 22, p < 0.001), but had a higher rate of mortality (4.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). After controlling for covariates, GTPs had an increased associated risk of mortality (OR 4.80, CI 3.62-6.36, p < 0.001). On a separate multivariate analysis for all trauma patients with isolated chest Abbreviated Injury Scale 3, GTPs were associated with a similar four-fold risk of mortality (OR 4.21, CI 1.98-6.32, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Spanning 7 years of data, the proportion of GTPs undergoing SSRF increased by over 7%. Although GTPs undergoing SSRF had lesser injuries, their risk of mortality was four times higher than other adult trauma patients undergoing SSRF, which was similar to their increased background risk of mortality. Ultimately, SSRF in GTPs should be considered on an individualized basis with careful attention to risk-benefit ratio.

Background

Incisional hernia (IH) is a known complication after colorectal surgery. Despite advances in minimally invasive surgery, colorectal surgery still requires extraction sites for specimen retrieval, increasing the likelihood of postoperative IH development. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of specimen extraction site on the rate of IH after minimally invasive right-sided colectomy for patients with available imaging.

Study design

This is a retrospective multi-institutional cohort study at 2 large academic medical centers in the US. Adults who underwent right-sided minimally invasive colectomy from 2012 to 2020 with abdominal imaging available at least 1 year postoperatively were included in the analysis. The primary exposure was specimen extraction via a midline specimen extraction vs Pfannenstiel specimen extraction. The main outcome was the development of IH at least 1 year postoperatively as visualized on a CT scan.

Results

Of the 341 patients sampled, 194 (57%) had midline specimen extraction and 147 (43%) had a Pfannenstiel specimen extraction. Midline extraction patients were older (66 ± 15 vs 58 ± 16; p < 0.001) and had a higher rate of previous abdominal operation (99, 51% vs 55, 37%, p = 0.01). The rate of IH was higher in midline extraction at 25% (48) compared with Pfannenstiel extraction (0, 0%; p < 0.001). The average length of stay was higher in the midline extraction group at 5.1 ± 2.5 compared with 3.4 ± 3.1 days in the Pfannenstiel extraction group (p < 0.001). Midline extraction was associated with IH development (odds ratio 24.6; 95% CI 1.89 to 319.44; p = 0.004). Extracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a higher IH rate (odds ratio 25.8; 95% CI 2.10 to 325.71; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Patients who undergo Pfannenstiel specimen extraction have a lower risk of IH development compared with those who undergo midline specimen extraction.

Contrast enema is the gold standard technique for evaluating a pelvic anastomosis (PA) prior to ileostomy closure. With the increasing use of flexible endoscopic modalities, the need for contrast studies may be unnecessary. The objective of this study is to compare flexible endoscopy and contrast studies for anastomotic inspection prior to defunctioning stoma reversal. Patients with a protected PA undergoing ileostomy closure between July 2014 and June 2019 at our institution were retrospectively identified. Demographics and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing preoperative evaluation with endoscopic and/or contrast studies were analyzed. We identified 207 patients undergoing ileostomy closure. According to surgeon's preference, 91 patients underwent only flexible endoscopy (FE) and 100 patients underwent both endoscopic and contrast evaluation (FE + CE) prior to reversal. There was no significant difference in pelvic anastomotic leak (2.2% vs. 1%), anastomotic stricture (1.1% vs. 6%), pelvic abscess (2.2% vs. 3.0%), or postoperative anastomotic complications (4.4% vs. 9%) between groups FE and FE + CE (P > .05). Flexible endoscopy alone appears to be an acceptable technique for anastomotic evaluation prior to ileostomy closure. Further studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of different diagnostic modalities for pelvic anastomotic inspection.

Introduction

Rigid proctosigmoidoscopy (RP) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) are two modalities commonly used for intraoperative evaluation of colorectal anastomoses. This study seeks to determine whether there is an association between the endoscopic modality used to evaluate colorectal anastomoses and the rate of anastomotic leak (AL), organ space infection, and overall infectious complication.

Methods

The 2012-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients undergoing colorectal anastomoses. Anastomotic evaluation method (RP versus FS) was identified by Current Procedural Terminologycoding and used for group classification. Outcomes measured included AL, organ space infections, and overall infection. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for predicting AL was performed.

Results

We identified 7100 patients who underwent a colorectal anastomosis with intraoperative endoscopic evaluation. RP was utilized in 3397 (47.8%) and FS in 3703 (52.2%) patients. RP was used more commonly in diverticulitis (44.5% versus 36.2%, P < 0.01), while FS was used more frequently in malignancy (47.5% versus 36.7%, P < 0.01). Anastomotic evaluation with FS was associated with lower rates of organ space infection (3.8% versus 4.8%, P = 0.025) and AL (2.9% versus 3.8%, P = 0.028) compared to RP. On multivariate logistic regression modeling, anastomotic evaluation with RP was associated with a higher risk of AL (odds ratio 1.403, 95% CI 1.028-1.916, P = 0.033) compared to FS.

Conclusions

Compared to FS, rigid proctosigmoidoscopic evaluation of a colorectal anastomosis was associated with an increased rate of AL and organ space infection.