Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE: Report the 2-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. To our knowledge, no studies have been published to date comparing long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03490266). Clinical outcomes included surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, hernia occurrence, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 175 consecutive patients were approached that were deemed eligible for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. In all, 124 were randomized and 101 completed follow-up at 2 years. Two-year follow-up was completed in 54 patients (83%) in the robotic arm and 47 patients (80%) in the laparoscopic arm. No differences were seen in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence. Hernia recurrence occurred in 2 patients (4%) receiving robotic repair versus in 6 patients (13%) receiving laparoscopic repair (relative risk: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.06-1.39; P =0.12). No patients (0%) required reoperation in the robotic arm whereas 5 patients (11%) underwent reoperation in the laparoscopic arm ( P =0.019, relative risk not calculatable due to null outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated at least similar if not improved outcomes at 2 years compared with laparoscopy. There is potential benefit with robotic repair; however, additional multi-center trials and longer follow-up are needed to validate the hypothesis-generating findings of this study

Surgical Infection Society Research Priorities: A Narrative Review of Fourteen Years of Progress

In 2006, the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) utilized a modified Delphi approach to define 15 specific priority research questions that remained unanswered in the field of surgical infections. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the scientific progress achieved during the ensuing period in answering each of the 15 research questions and to determine if additional research in these fields is warranted. For each of the questions, a literature search using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) was performed by the Scientific Studies Committee of the SIS to identify studies that attempted to address each of the defined questions. This literature was analyzed and summarized. The data on each question were evaluated by a surgical infections expert to determine if the question was answered definitively or remains unanswered. All 15 priority research questions were studied in the last 14 years; six questions (40%) were definitively answered and 9 questions (60%) remain unanswered in whole or in part, mainly because of the low quality of the studies available on this topic. Several of the 9 unanswered questions were deemed to remain research priorities in 2020 and warrant further investigation. These included, for example, the role of empiric antimicrobial agents in nosocomial infections, the use of inotropes/vasopressors versus volume loading to raise the mean arterial pressure, and the role of increased antimicrobial dosing and frequency in the obese patient. Several surgical infection-related research questions prioritized in 2006 remain unanswered. Further high-quality research is required to provide a definitive answer to many of these priority knowledge gaps. An updated research agenda by the SIS is warranted at this time to define research priorities for the future

Optimal timing of initial debridement for necrotizing soft tissue infection: A Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUNDNecrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI) are rare, life-threatening, soft-tissue infections characterized by rapidly spreading inflammation and necrosis of the skin, subcutaneous fat, and fascia. While it is widely accepted that delay in surgical debridement contributes to increased mortality, there are currently no practice management guidelines regarding the optimal timing of surgical management of this condition. Although debridement within 24 hours of diagnosis is generally recommended, the time ranges from 3 hours to 36 hours in the existing literature. Therefore, the objective of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the optimal timing of surgical management of NSTI.METHODSThe MEDLINE database using PubMed was searched to identify English language articles published from January 1990 to September 2015 regarding adult and pediatric patients with NSTIs. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework were used. A single population [P], intervention [I], comparator [C], and outcome [O] (PICO) question was applied: In patients with NSTI (P), should early (<12 hours) initial debridement (I) versus late (≥12 hours) initial debridement (C) be performed to decrease mortality (O)?RESULTSTwo hundred eighty-seven articles were identified. Of these, 42 papers underwent full text review and 6 were selected for guideline construction. A total of 341 patients underwent debridement for NSTI. Of these, 143 patients were managed with early versus 198 with late operative debridement. Across all studies, there was an overall mortality rate of 14% in the early group versus 25.8% in the late group.CONCLUSIONFor NSTIs, we recommend early operative debridement within 12 hours of suspected diagnosis. Institutional and regional systems should be optimized to facilitate prompt surgical evaluation and debridement.LEVEL OF EVIDENCESystematic review/meta-analysis, level IV

Perceptions on gender disparity in surgery and surgical leadership: A multicenter mixed methods study

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. Background: Our objective was to identify perceptions of the environment for women in surgery among 4 academic institutions. Methods: Faculty surgeons and senior surgery residents were randomly selected to participate in a parallel study with concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection. Outcomes were perceptions of the environment for women in surgery. Measures included semi-structured interviews, survey responses, and responses to scenarios. Results: Saturation was achieved after 36 individuals were interviewed: 14 female (8 faculty, 6 residents) and 22 male (18 faculty, 4 residents) surgeons. Men (100%) and women (86%) reported gender disparity in surgery and identified 6 major categories which influence disparity: definitions of gender disparity, gaps in mentoring, family responsibility, disparity in leave, unequal pay, and professional advancement. Overall 94% of participants expressed concerns with gaps in mentoring, but 64% of women versus 14% of men reported difficulties finding role models who faced similar obstacles. Over half (53%) reported time with loved ones as their biggest sacrifice to advance professionally. Both female and male respondents expressed system-based biases favoring individuals willing to sacrifice family. A global subconscious bias against the expectations, abilities, and goals of female surgeons were perceived to impede promotion and advancement. Conclusion: Both female and male surgeons report substantial gender-based barriers in surgery for women. Despite improvements, fundamental issues such as lack of senior role models, limited support for surgeons with families, and disparities in hiring and promotion persist. This is an opportunity to make substantive changes to the system and eliminate barriers for women joining surgery, advancing their careers, and achieving their goals in a timely fashion

Surgical Infections and the Future of Research: Re-Defining the Research Agenda for the Surgical Infection Society

Infections represent a major component of surgical practice. Risk mitigation, seeking eradication and optimal patient outcomes, require a concerted, multifocal effort to understand disease and microbiology, prevent infections, and treat them. The present study was undertaken to re-define the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) research agenda for the next decade. We utilized the expertise of the SIS membership to identify research questions regarding surgical infections, hypothesizing that consensus among participants could be used to re-define the future research agenda. Members of the SIS were surveyed using a modified Delphi. The three rounds of the survey were targeted at: question generation; question ranking; and reaching consensus. Each of the 15 questions to emerge was evaluated according to level of consensus, feasibility, and data availability. One hundred twenty-four participants contributed. Initially, 226 questions were generated that were condensed to 35 unique questions for consideration in the subsequent two rounds. The 35 questions encompassed several research themes, with antibiotic prophylaxis (n = 8), prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs; n = 6), and improved diagnostics (n = 5) being most common. Standard deviation of importance scores was inversely proportional to the question rank, indicating greater consensus among higher ranking questions. All 15 questions had a feasibility score of greater than three (five-point Likert scale), and the majority (12/15) had a mean data availability score of less than three. In the final round of the survey, the top three topics for further research surrounded non-antimicrobial treatments, optimal treatment duration for bacteremia, and treatment duration for necrotizing soft tissue infections. Using a modified Delphi process, 15 research questions addressing surgical infections were identified. Such questions can assist the SIS and the SIS Foundation for Research and Education in prioritizing and enabling research efforts, and development of a strategic research plan for the next decade

Different Surgeon, Different Duration: Lack of Consensus on the Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Therapy in Surgical Practice

The principles of antimicrobial stewardship promote the appropriate prescribing of agents with respect to efficacy, safety, duration, and cost. Antibiotic resistance often results from inappropriate use (e.g., indication, selection, duration). We evaluated practice variability in duration of antimicrobials in surgical infection treatment (Rx) or prophylaxis (Px). There is lack of consensus regarding the duration of antibiotic Px and Rx for many common indications. A survey was distributed to the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) regarding the use of antimicrobial agents for a variety of scenarios. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare survey responses. Heterogeneity among question responses were compared using the Shannon Index, expressed as natural units (nats). Sixty-three SIS members responded, most of whom (67%) have held a leadership position within the SIS or contributed as an annual meeting moderator or discussant; 76% have been in practice for more than five years. Regarding peri-operative Px, more than 80% agreed that a single dose is adequate for most indications, with the exceptions of gangrenous cholecystitis (40% single dose, 38% pre-operative +24 hours) and inguinal hernia repair requiring a bowel resection (70% single dose). There was more variability regarding the use of antibiotic Px for various bedside procedures with respondents split between none needed (range, 27%-66%) versus a single dose (range, 31%-67%). Opinions regarding the duration of antimicrobial Rx for hospitalized patients who have undergone a source control operation or procedure varied widely based on indication. Only two of 20 indications achieved more than 60% consensus despite available class 1 evidence: seven days for ventilator-associated pneumonia (77%), and four plus one days for perforated appendicitis (62%). Except for peri-operative antibiotic Px, there is little consensus regarding antibiotic duration among surgical infection experts, despite class 1 evidence and several available guidelines. This highlights the need for further high-level research and better dissemination of guidelines

Knockout Serum Replacement Promotes Cell Survival by Preventing BIM from Inducing Mitochondrial Cytochrome <i>C</i> Release

<div><p>Knockout serum replacement (KOSR) is a nutrient supplement commonly used to replace serum for culturing stem cells. We show here that KOSR has pro-survival activity in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cells transformed by the BCR-ABL oncogene. Inhibitors of BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase kill CML cells by stimulating pro-apoptotic BIM and inhibiting anti-apoptotic BCL2, BCLxL and MCL1. We found that KOSR protects CML cells from killing by BCR-ABL inhibitors—imatinib, dasatinib and nilotinib. The protective effect of KOSR is reversible and not due to the selective outgrowth of drug-resistant clones. In KOSR-protected CML cells, imatinib still inhibited the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase, reduced the phosphorylation of STAT, ERK and AKT, down-regulated BCL2, BCLxL, MCL1 and up-regulated BIM. However, these pro-apoptotic alterations failed to cause cytochrome <i>c</i> release from the mitochondria. With mitochondria isolated from KOSR-cultured CML cells, we showed that addition of recombinant BIM protein also failed to cause cytochrome <i>c</i> release. Besides the kinase inhibitors, KOSR could protect cells from menadione, an inducer of oxidative stress, but it did not protect cells from DNA damaging agents. Switching from serum to KOSR caused a transient increase in reactive oxygen species and AKT phosphorylation in CML cells that were protected by KOSR but not in those that were not protected by this nutrient supplement. Treatment of KOSR-cultured cells with the PH-domain inhibitor MK2206 blocked AKT phosphorylation, abrogated the formation of BIM-resistant mitochondria and stimulated cell death. These results show that KOSR has cell-context dependent pro-survival activity that is linked to AKT activation and the inhibition of BIM-induced cytochrome <i>c</i> release from the mitochondria.</p></div

Book of Abstracts: 2019 Health Equity Summer Research Summit Organized by the Center of Excellence in Health Equity, Training and Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA on June 18th, 2019

Copyright © 2020 Harris. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited