Introduction Outcomes in colorectal cancer treatment are historically worse in Black people and residents of rural areas. Purported reasons include factors such as systemic racism, poverty, lack of access to care, and social determinants of health. We sought to determine whether outcomes worsened when race and rural residence intersected. Methods The National Cancer Database was queried for individuals with stage II–III colorectal cancer (2004-2018). To examine the intersectionality of race/rurality on outcomes, race (Black/White) and rurality (based on county) were combined into a single variable. Main outcome of interest was 5-year survival. Cox hazard regression analysis was performed to determine variables independently associating with survival. Control variables included age at diagnosis, sex, race, Charlson-Deyo score, insurance status, stage, and facility type. Results Of 463 948 patients, 5717 were Black-Rural, 50 742 were Black-Urban, 72 241 were White-Rural, and 33 5271 were White-Urban. Five-year mortality rate was 31.6%. Univariate Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated race-rurality was associated with overall survival ( P < .001), with White-Urban having the greatest mean survival length (47.9 months) and Black-Rural with the lowest (46.7 months). Multivariable analysis found that Black-Rural (1.26, 95% confidence interval [1.20-1.32]), Black-Urban (1.16, [1.16-1.18]), and White-Rural (HR: 1.05; (1.04-1.07) had increased mortality when compared to White-Urban individuals ( P < .001). Conclusion Although White-Rural individuals fared worse than White-Urban, Black individuals fared worst of all, with the poorest outcomes observed in Black individuals in rural areas. This suggests that both Black race and rurality negatively affect survival, and act synergistically to further worsen outcomes.

No abstract

Despite the increasing number of bariatric procedures being performed, the optimal strategy for managing the crura during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remains controversial. Options include no closure, primary suture closure, and suture closure with mesh reinforcement. We sought to investigate outcomes associated with each technique and determine if any approach proved to be superior. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study that evaluated patients undergoing LSG performed by a single surgeon in a 7-year period. Data were collected via chart review. The primary endpoint was hiatal hernia presence at 5 years post-operatively. Secondary endpoints included post-procedural complications (nausea, vomiting, dysphagia, or reflux) at 30 days post-operatively. Results A total of 361 patients were included in the analysis: 154 without crural closure, 164 primary crural closure, and 43 primary crural closure with mesh reinforcement. Rates of hiatal hernia occurrence at 5 years were 9.7% (no closure), 14.0% (primary closure), and 16.3% (closure with mesh reinforcement), respectively, and did not differ significantly among the 3 cohorts (P = .37). Overall rates of 30-day complications were 11.5%, 21.5%, and 28.6%, respectively ( P = .015). Conclusion Rates of hiatal hernia after sleeve gastrectomy do not differ, regardless of management of the crura. In addition, and perhaps more significantly, avoidance of crural closure was associated with fewer 30-day complications. In fact, the highest rate of 30-day complications was seen in the group that received closure with mesh reinforcement. These data suggest that crural closure during LSG should be avoided. Further prospective study of these findings is warranted.