- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Pei, Kevin"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Outcomes of Concurrent Ventral Hernia Repair and Cholecystectomy Compared to Ventral Hernia Repair Alone(Springer Nature, 2023-09-21) Becker, Timothy P.; Duggan, Ben; Rao, Varun; Deleon, Genaro; Pei, Kevin; Surgery, School of MedicineIt has been suggested that hernia repair with concomitant cholecystectomy increases the risk of postoperative complications due to potential mesh contamination. This study compares postoperative outcomes and complications between patients who underwent ventral hernia repair (VHR) with and without concomitant cholecystectomy (CCY). Methods Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, from 2005 to 2019, we queried patients who underwent ventral hernia repairs using the current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 49652-49657 (laparoscopic) and 49560-49566 (open), with or without cholecystectomy. The ACS NSQIP is a prospective, systematic study of patients who underwent major general surgical procedures aggregating data from over 200 hospitals. Cases involving additional concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality, length of stay, readmission, return to operating room (OR), and postoperative complications. The odds ratio for primary outcomes was calculated using multivariable binomial logistic regression to control for patient risk factors. Results In total, 167586 cases were identified, 165,758 ventral hernia repairs alone, and 1,828 ventral hernia repairs with concomitant cholecystectomy. There was no difference in 30-day mortality, length of stay, readmission, return to the operating room, or postoperative complications between groups. Patients who underwent simultaneous VHR/CCY when compared to those who had VHR alone, had no differences in the rate of surgical site infections (1.86% vs. 1.97%, P = 0.57) or sepsis (0.82% vs. 0.41%, P = 0.10). Conclusion In a large national sample, there is no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, specifically infection-related complications, when comparing VHR along with concurrent VHR/CCY. Our findings suggest no increased risks for patients undergoing concurrent ventral hernia repair and cholecystectomy. Hence, surgeons might consider this combined approach to offer the best value-based care, especially when it could eliminate the need for a second operation and the risk of infection is low. Prospective studies with more procedural-specific information for hernia repairs and indications for cholecystectomy are needed however it is likely safe to perform both procedures during the same setting in cholecystectomy cases lacking signs of acute infection.Item The ACS-NSQIP Analysis of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Following Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Diagnoses(Springer Nature, 2024-05-01) DeLeon, Genaro; Rao, Varun; Duggan, Ben; Becker, Timothy P.; Pei, Kevin; Surgery, School of MedicineIntroduction: Surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to be a challenging issue among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Anecdotally, the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) following pancreatectomy for cancer has been associated with decreased SSIs. The objective of this study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of NPWT and non-NPWT for incisional wound care following distal pancreatectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic diagnoses using a national surgical database. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) was queried from 2005 to 2019 for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic diagnoses using primary Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The primary outcome was surgical site infection rates between NPWT and non-NPWT patient groups. Secondary outcomes include sepsis, septic shock, readmission, and reoperation. Outcomes of interest were compared using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 54,457 patients underwent pancreatectomy with 131 receiving NPWT. Multivariate analysis, while accounting for patient characteristics, including wound classification, showed no difference in postoperative superficial SSI, deep SSI, sepsis, septic shock, or readmission between the NPWT and non-NPWT groups. Organ space SSI was higher in the NPWT group (21% vs 12%, p=0.001). Reoperation related to procedure was also high in the NPWT group (14% vs 4.3%, p<0.001). Conclusion: The use of NPWT in distal pancreatectomies and pancreatoduodenectomies is associated with increased organ space SSIs and reoperation rates, with no difference in superficial SSI, deep SSI, or readmission. This large sample study shows no significant benefit of using NPWT incisional wound care after pancreatectomy.