Objective: To determine the effect of operative versus nonoperative management of emergency general surgery conditions on short-term and long-term outcomes. Background: Many emergency general surgery conditions can be managed either operatively or nonoperatively, but high-quality evidence to guide management decisions is scarce. Methods: We included 507,677 Medicare patients treated for an emergency general surgery condition between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. Operative management was compared with nonoperative management using a preference-based instrumental variable analysis and near-far matching to minimize selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Outcomes were mortality, complications, and readmissions. Results: For hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions, operative management was associated with lower risk of mortality at 30 days [−2.6% (95% confidence interval: −4.0, −1.3)], 90 days [−4.7% (−6.50, −2.8)], and 180 days [−6.4% (−8.5, −4.2)]. Among 56,582 intestinal obstruction patients, operative management was associated with a higher risk of inpatient mortality [2.8% (0.7, 4.9)] but no significant difference thereafter. For upper gastrointestinal conditions, operative management was associated with a 9.7% higher risk of in-hospital mortality (6.4, 13.1), which increased over time. There was a 6.9% higher risk of inpatient mortality (3.6, 10.2) with operative management for colorectal conditions, which increased over time. For general abdominal conditions, operative management was associated with 12.2% increased risk of inpatient mortality (8.7, 15.8). This effect was attenuated at 30 days [8.5% (3.8, 13.2)] and nonsignificant thereafter. Conclusions: The effect of operative emergency general surgery management varied across conditions and over time. For colorectal and upper gastrointestinal conditions, outcomes are superior with nonoperative management, whereas surgery is favored for patients with hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions. For obstructions and general abdominal conditions, results were equivalent overall. These findings may support patients, clinicians, and families making these challenging decisions.

Background: The lack of underrepresented minorities has been a persistent issue within the surgical workforce. Equal sex representation has also been a problem in surgery. Underrepresented minorities females face the unique challenge of being a minority in both race and sex. Objective: The objective of this retrospective cross-sectional study is to determine the racial and sex demographics of medical trainees and faculty and determine the degree to which minority women are underrepresented at higher ranks and leadership. Methods: Race and sex demographic data for all medical students, surgical residents and faculty was extracted from the AAMC data files. This data was compared to the US population using chi squared tests. Race and sex breakdowns of the different surgical subspecialties was also analyzed using chi squared tests. Demographics of surgical faculty at various ranks are also reported. Results: White men made up 37% of all surgical residents. Black men made up only 1.9% of all surgical residents whereas Black women made up 2.6%. The subspecialty with the smallest percentage of Black women was Orthopedic Surgery with 0.6%. The specialty with the highest representation of Black women was Ob/Gyn with 6.2%. There was a decrease in representation of Black women with each increase in professional rank, with 2.8%, 1.6%, and 0.7% for assistant, associate, and full professor, respectively, as compared to Black men, who as a percentage, remained stable at the various ranks with 2.1%, 2.4%, and 2.1% for assistant, associate, and full professor, respectively. Conclusions: There is a striking lack of minority women in surgery. This trend is amplified as surgeons progress from student, to resident, to attending, and then to leadership positions.

BackgroundRoutine repeat cranial CT (RHCT) is standard of care for CT-verified traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite mixed evidence, those with mild TBI are subject to radiation and expense from serial CT scans. Thus, we investigated the necessity and utility of RHCT for patients with mild TBI. We hypothesized that repeat head CT in these patients would not alter patient care or outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively studied patients suffering from mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 13–15) and treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center from November 2014 through January 2015. The primary outcome was the need for surgical intervention. Outcomes were compared using paired Student’s t-test, and stratified by injury on initial CT, GCS change, demographics, and presenting vital signs (mean ± SD).ResultsEighty-five patients met inclusion criteria with an average initial GCS score=14.6±0.57. Our center sees about 2800 patients with TBI per year, or about 230 per month. This includes patients with concussions. This sample represents about 30% of patients with TBI seen during the study period. Ten patients required operation (four based on initial CT and others for worsening GCS, headaches, large unresolving injury). There was progression of injury on repeat CT scan in only two patients that required operation, and this accompanied clinical deterioration. The mean brain Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score was 4.8±0.3 for surgical patients on initial CT scan compared with 3.4±0.6 (P<0.001) for non-surgical patients. Initial CT subdural hematoma size was 1.1±0.6 cm for surgical patients compared with 0.49±0.3 cm (P=0.05) for non-surgical patients. There was no significant difference between intervention groups in terms of other intracranial injuries, demographics, vital signs, or change in GCS. Overall, 75 patients that did not require surgical intervention received RHCT. At $340 per CT, $51 000 was spent on unnecessary imaging ($367 000/year, extrapolated).DiscussionIn an environment of increased scrutiny on healthcare expenditures, it is necessary to question dogma and eliminate unnecessary cost. Our data questions the use of routine repeat head CT scans in every patient with anatomic TBI and suggests that clinically stable patients with small injury can simply be followed clinically.Level of evidenceLevel III.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of multimorbidity on long-term outcomes for older emergency general surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare beneficiaries, age 65 and older, who underwent operative management of an emergency general surgery condition were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid claims data. Patients were classified as multimorbid based on the presence of a Qualifying Comorbidity Set (a specific combination of comorbid conditions known to be associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in the general surgery setting) and compared with those without multimorbidity. Risk-adjusted outcomes through 180 days after discharge from index hospitalization were calculated using linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of 174,891 included patients, 45.5% were identified as multimorbid. Multimorbid patients had higher rates of mortality during index hospitalization (5.9% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 3.05, p < 0.001) and through 6 months (17.1% vs 3.4%, OR 2.33, p < 0.001) after discharge. Multimorbid patients experienced higher rates of readmission at 1 month (22.9% vs 11.4%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) and 6 months (38.2% vs 21.2%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) after discharge, lower rates of discharge to home (42.5% vs 74.2%, OR 0.52, p < 0.001), higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation/nursing facility (28.3% vs 11.3%, OR 1.62, p < 0.001), greater than double the use of home oxygen, walker, wheelchair, bedside commode, and hospital bed (p < 0.001), longer length of index hospitalization (1.33 additional in-patient days, p < 0.001), and higher costs through 6 months ($5,162 additional, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid patients experience worse outcomes, including survival and independent function, after emergency general surgery than nonmultimorbid patients through 6 months after discharge from index hospitalization. This information is important for setting recovery expectations for high-risk patients to improve shared decision-making.

ImportanceA surgical consultation is a critical first step in the care of patients with emergency general surgery conditions. It is unknown if Black Medicare patients and White Medicare patients receive surgical consultations at similar rates when they are admitted from the emergency department.ObjectiveTo determine whether Black Medicare patients have similar rates of surgical consultations when compared with White Medicare patients after being admitted from the emergency department with an emergency general surgery condition.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a retrospective cohort study that took place at US hospitals with an emergency department and used a computational generalization of inverse propensity score weight to create patient populations with similar covariate distributions. Participants were Medicare patients age 65.5 years or older admitted from the emergency department for an emergency general surgery condition between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. The analysis was performed during February 2022. Patients were classified into 1 of 5 emergency general surgery condition categories based on principal diagnosis codes: colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreatobiliary, intestinal obstruction, and upper gastrointestinal.ExposuresBlack vs White race.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReceipt of a surgical consultation after admission from the emergency department with an emergency general surgery condition.ResultsA total of 1 686 940 patients were included in the study. Of those included, 214 788 patients were Black (12.7%) and 1 472 152 patients were White (87.3%). After standardizing for medical and diagnostic imaging covariates, Black patients had 14% lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.87) with a risk difference of −3.17 (95% CI, −3.41 to −2.92). After standardizing for socioeconomic covariates, Black patients remained at an 11% lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation compared with similar White patients (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90) with a risk difference of −2.49 (95% CI, −2.75 to −2.23). Additionally, when restricting the analysis to Black patients and White patients who were treated in the same hospitals, Black patients had 8% lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation when compared with White patients (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93) with a risk difference of −1.82 (95% CI, −2.18 to −1.46).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, Black Medicare patients had lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation after being admitted from the emergency department with an emergency general surgery condition when compared with similar White Medicare patients. These disparities in consultation rates cannot be fully attributed to medical comorbidities, insurance status, socioeconomic factors, or individual hospital-level effects.