Introduction
Patients undergoing non-elective paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) have worse perioperative outcomes. Because they are usually older and sicker, however, these patients may be more prone to adverse events, independent of surgical urgency. Our study aimed to determine whether non-elective PEHR is associated with differential postoperative outcome compared to elective repair, using propensity-score weighting.
Methods
We abstracted data for patients undergoing PEHR (n=924; non-elective n=171 [19%]; 1997-2010). Using boosted regression, we generated a propensity-weighted dataset. Odds of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and major complications after non-elective surgery were determined.
Results
Patients undergoing non-elective repair were significantly older, had more adverse prognostic factors and significantly more major complications (38% vs 18%; p<0.001) and death (8% vs 1%; p<0.001). After propensity-weighting, median absolute percentage bias across 28 propensity-score variables improved from 19% (significant imbalance) to 5.6% (well-balanced). After adjusting propensity-weighted data for age and comorbidity score, odds of major complications were still nearly 2 times greater (OR 1.67, CI 1.07-2.61) and mortality nearly 3 times greater (OR 2.74, CI 0.93-8.1) than for elective repair.
Conclusions
Even after balancing significant differences in baseline characteristics, non-elective PEHR was associated with worse outcomes than elective repair. Symptomatic patients should be referred for elective repair by experienced surgeons.