Salim Hosein1,2, Tyson Carlson3, Laura Flores1, Priscila Rodrigues Armijo1,2, Dmitry Oleynikov4,5,6. 1. Center for Advanced Surgical Technology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, General Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 3. College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 4. Center for Advanced Surgical Technology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. doleynik@icloud.edu. 5. Department of Surgery, General Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. doleynik@icloud.edu. 6. Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of General Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986246 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA. doleynik@icloud.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the outcomes and utilization of different hiatal hernia repair (HHR) approaches in elective and emergent/urgent settings. METHODS: Vizient 2015-2017 database was queried for adult patients who underwent HHR. Patients were grouped into open (OHHR), laparoscopic (LHHR), or robotic-assisted (RHHR), and further stratified by elective or urgent status and severity of illness at admission. Surgical outcomes and costs were compared across all groups. Statistical analysis were done using SPSS v.25.0. RESULTS: 9171 adults were included (OHHR N = 1534;LHHR N = 6796;RHHR N = 841). LHHR was the most utilized approach (74.1%), followed by OHRR (16.7%) and RHHR (9.2%). OHHR was employed three times as frequently in U settings, compared to elective. Overall, OHHR had longer mean length of stay (LOS; 9.41 vs. < 4 days) and higher postoperative complication rates (8.8% vs < 3.8%), mortality (2.7% vs < 0.5%) and mean direct cost ($27,842 vs < $10,407), when compared to both LHHR and RHHR, all p < 0.05. Analysis of mild to severely ill elective cases demonstrated LHHR and RHHR to be better than OHHR regarding complications (p < 0.05), cost (p < 0.001) and LOS (p < 0.013); there were insufficient extremely ill elective patients for meaningful analysis. In the urgent setting, minimally invasive approaches predominate, overtaken by OHHR only for the extremely ill. Despite the urgent setting, for mild-moderately ill patients, OHHR was statistically inferior to both LHHR and RHHR for LOS (p = 0.002, p < 0.0001) and cost (p = 0.0133, p < 0.001). In severe-extremely ill patients, despite being more utilized, OHHR was not superior to LHHR; in fact, complication, cost, and mortality trends (all p > 0.05) favored LHHR. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated LHHR to currently be the most employed approach overall. LHHR and RHHR were associated with lower cost, decreased LOS, complications, and mortality compared to OHHR, in all but the sickest of patients. Patients should be offered minimally invasive HHR, even in urgent/emergent settings, if technically feasible.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the outcomes and utilization of different hiatal hernia repair (HHR) approaches in elective and emergent/urgent settings. METHODS: Vizient 2015-2017 database was queried for adult patients who underwent HHR. Patients were grouped into open (OHHR), laparoscopic (LHHR), or robotic-assisted (RHHR), and further stratified by elective or urgent status and severity of illness at admission. Surgical outcomes and costs were compared across all groups. Statistical analysis were done using SPSS v.25.0. RESULTS: 9171 adults were included (OHHR N = 1534;LHHR N = 6796;RHHR N = 841). LHHR was the most utilized approach (74.1%), followed by OHRR (16.7%) and RHHR (9.2%). OHHR was employed three times as frequently in U settings, compared to elective. Overall, OHHR had longer mean length of stay (LOS; 9.41 vs. < 4 days) and higher postoperative complication rates (8.8% vs < 3.8%), mortality (2.7% vs < 0.5%) and mean direct cost ($27,842 vs < $10,407), when compared to both LHHR and RHHR, all p < 0.05. Analysis of mild to severely ill elective cases demonstrated LHHR and RHHR to be better than OHHR regarding complications (p < 0.05), cost (p < 0.001) and LOS (p < 0.013); there were insufficient extremely ill elective patients for meaningful analysis. In the urgent setting, minimally invasive approaches predominate, overtaken by OHHR only for the extremely ill. Despite the urgent setting, for mild-moderately ill patients, OHHR was statistically inferior to both LHHR and RHHR for LOS (p = 0.002, p < 0.0001) and cost (p = 0.0133, p < 0.001). In severe-extremely ill patients, despite being more utilized, OHHR was not superior to LHHR; in fact, complication, cost, and mortality trends (all p > 0.05) favored LHHR. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated LHHR to currently be the most employed approach overall. LHHR and RHHR were associated with lower cost, decreased LOS, complications, and mortality compared to OHHR, in all but the sickest of patients. Patients should be offered minimally invasive HHR, even in urgent/emergent settings, if technically feasible.
Authors: Alex Addo; Dylan Carmichael; Kelley Chan; Andrew Broda; Brian Dessify; Gabriel Mekel; Jon D Gabrielsen; Anthony T Petrick; David M Parker Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sujay Kulshrestha; Haroon M Janjua; Corinne Bunn; Michael Rogers; Christopher DuCoin; Zaid M Abdelsattar; Fred A Luchette; Paul C Kuo; Marshall S Baker Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 6.532