This cohort study evaluates disparities between Black and White patients regarding elective vs emergency surgical setting, minimally invasive vs open surgical modality, and clinical outcomes of emergency procedures.
Key Points
Question
Are there racial disparities in access to minimally invasive surgery and outcomes for patients undergoing emergency general surgery procedures?
Findings
In this large national cohort study of over 2 million procedures, minimally invasive surgery was associated with better outcomes overall; however, Black patients had significantly higher odds of undergoing emergency procedures and open surgery compared with White patients, even after adjustment for clinical and hospital factors.
Meaning
These findings suggest that disparities in surgical access and outcomes persist for Black patients and underscore the outcomes of structural inequities in emergency general surgery, highlighting the need for targeted equity-focused interventions in surgical practice and health systems.
Abstract
Importance
Disparities in outcomes for emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures may reflect structural inequities in access and care. Understanding how social and economic determinants contribute to these disparities could help identify opportunities to reduce them.
Objective
To assess racial disparities between: (1) surgical setting (elective vs EGS), (2) surgical modality (minimally invasive [MIS] vs open), and (3) clinical outcomes of EGS procedures stratified by modality.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Retrospective cohort study using data from Premier Healthcare Database, a national, all-payer hospital discharge dataset, spanning 2016 to 2022. Participants were non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic White adult patients undergoing cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, or colorectal resections. Data analysis was performed from March 2025 to February 2026.
Exposure
Surgical setting (elective vs EGS) and surgical modality (MIS vs open).
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was operative setting and modality, analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, perioperative complications, 30-day readmission, conversion to open modality, and in-hospital mortality. Propensity score matching was used to compare clinical outcomes between Black and White patients undergoing EGS by surgical modality.
Results
Among 2 443 304 procedures, 254 281 (10.4%) were performed on Black patients, 2 189 023 (89.5%) were performed on White patients, 1 231 252 (50.3%) were performed on female patients, and 788 205 (32.3%) were performed emergently. Most patients were aged 45 to 64 years (939 123 patients [38.4%]). Black patients had higher adjusted odds of undergoing emergency vs elective procedures (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.28-1.30) and open vs MIS in the emergency setting (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08) compared with White patients. Patients undergoing EGS were more likely to be older, female, Black, publicly insured, have higher comorbidity, live in rural areas, and be treated at nonteaching hospitals. Among MIS procedures, Black patients had higher rates of 30-day readmission, longer lengths of stay, and higher conversion to open surgery. For open surgical procedures, Black patients had longer lengths of stay.
Conclusions and Relevance
In this retrospective cohort study, Black patients faced disparities in surgical setting, access to MIS, and outcomes. These inequities highlight the need for targeted, equity-focused interventions to expand access to MIS and improve outcomes across diverse populations.
Introduction
Emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures have increased in the US in the past 5 years, driven by rising prevalence of chronic conditions and the aging population.1,2,3 EGS encompasses all nonelective general surgical procedures, including those initiated in the emergency department or inpatient setting. These procedures often address life-threatening conditions requiring unplanned surgical intervention, and place a substantial burden on the health care system through higher costs, staffing demands, and disruptions to scheduled care.4,5
Because of the high stakes of EGS procedures, disparities in access to timely, high-quality care may have lasting implications for patient outcomes.6 A growing body of literature demonstrates that Black patients are disproportionately affected by adverse health conditions, in part due to cumulative exposure to social and economic disadvantage.7 The health weathering hypothesis provides one explanation, suggesting that long-term exposure to structural inequities contributes to earlier onset of illness and greater need for actual interventions, such as EGS.8,9 For example, a nationwide analysis from 2011 to 2020 found that Black, Hispanic and Asian patients had 38%, 45%, and 25% greater odds, respectively, of undergoing EGS compared with elective surgery.10 These disparities likely reflect multiple intersecting factors, including socioeconomic barriers, insurance coverage, geographic variation in access to specialized surgeons (particularly in rural and underserved urban areas), and implicit biases within health care systems that may influence referral and treatment patterns.11,12,13,14 Collectively, these barriers perpetuate inequitable access and may exacerbate the cumulative health weathering experienced by marginalized groups.
Over the past several decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become increasingly adopted, including in EGS procedures.15 In emergency settings, MIS approaches have been associated with improved outcomes such as shorter length of stay, lower rates of surgical site infection, and reduced mortality.16,17 However, these advances have not been equitably experienced across racial and ethnic groups.18,19 Despite well-documented benefits, limited research has examined how race and ethnicity might be associated with the use of MIS in EGS compared with elective procedures and how these differences ultimately are associated with outcomes.
Significant gaps remain in the literature regarding the association between race and ethnicity, surgical modality, and outcomes in EGS. To date, few studies have quantitatively assessed rates of MIS use in EGS across racial groups while accounting for comorbidities.9,10,11,16 Addressing this gap, our study aims to investigate 3 critical domains among Black and White patients: (1) differences in surgical setting, (2) use of surgical modality in the emergency setting, and (3) disparities in outcomes stratified by modality.
Methods
Data Source and Study Population
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD). PHD captures data from more than 1400 geographically diverse nonprofit, nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals across rural and urban areas.20 It includes nearly 9 million inpatient admissions annually, representing approximately 25% of US inpatient admissions, as well as more than 86 million annual outpatient visits to emergency departments, ambulatory surgery centers, and alternate sites of care.20 This observational study used aggregated, deidentified patient data; institutional review board approval and informed consent were not required in accordance with 45 CFR §46. The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines.21
Procedures and Cohort Formation
We included the 4 most common general surgery procedures with elective and emergent analogs: cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and colorectal resections (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes listed in eTable 1 in Supplement 1). Race and ethnicity were determined by data abstracted from PHD, which draws data from the electronic health record of individual facilities. PHD classifies race as Asian, Black, White, other, or unable to determine. The other race category includes people of races other than Black, White, or Asian, such as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander. Ethnicity is categorized as Hispanic or non-Hispanic separately from race. We chose to only compare non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients to minimize heterogeneity related to race reporting, as we acknowledge that race is an indistinct social construct and many patients identify as multiracial. Eligible patients were non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) adults (aged ≥18 years) who underwent an elective or emergency general surgery procedure between 2016 and 2022. Inclusion required (1) a primary ICD-10 or CPT code for 1 of the 4 procedures, (2) classification of the procedure as elective or emergency, and (3) a race identifier within the PHD database. For patients with multiple qualifying procedures, only the earliest was included as subsequent procedures could represent reoperation, disease progression or postoperative complications, or scheduled follow-up procedures that could add a layer of confounding in choice of modality.
Surgical Setting and Modality
The primary outcome was the surgical setting (elective vs emergency). Emergency procedures were defined as those performed following initial presentation to the emergency department or urgent care. Patients were classified as undergoing robotic surgery (RS) if they had an ICD-10, CPT, or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System modifier code for robotic-assisted surgery or a charge code for robotic instrumentation. Laparoscopic surgery (LS) was defined by a laparoscopic modifier code. Both RS and LS were grouped as MIS. Patients without these codes were classified as open surgery (OS). An intention-to-treat analysis approach for surgical modality was used; procedures converted to OS were analyzed according to their original planned modality.
Study Covariates and Postoperative Outcomes
The adjusted analysis included demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics. Demographics included sex (female, male, or unknown), age (18-34, 35-44, 45-64, or ≥65 years) and payer type (commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, or other). Clinical variables included procedure (cholecystectomy, colorectal procedures, or inguinal and ventral hernia), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; 0, 1, and ≥2)22 and obesity (BMI ≥30; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). Hospital characteristics included location (rural or urban), teaching status, region (Northeast, West, South, and Midwest), and hospital bed size (<100 beds, 100-499 beds, or ≥500 beds). Overall and postoperative outcomes were examined including length of stay, 30-day readmission, conversion to OS, perioperative complications, and in-hospital mortality (codes listed in eTable 2 in Supplement 1).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to compare elective vs emergency procedures. Group comparisons were assessed using Fisher exact test for categorical variable and t tests for continuous variables. A P value less than .05 was used to determine statistically siginificant differences between groups.
For aim 1, we examined the association between race and surgical setting using logistic regression, reporting crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for emergency vs elective procedures in Black vs White patients. Adjusted models included the previously described demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics.
For aim 2, restricted to EGS cases, we evaluated the association between race and surgical modality (open vs MIS) using crude and adjusted logistic regression models. Adjusted models included the previously described demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics.
For aim 3, we assessed disparities in outcomes by surgical modality. Propensity scores were used to balance demographic (age, sex, and payer type), clinical (procedure type, CCI, and BMI), and hospital (urban or rural, size, teaching status, and region) covariates between race groups, separately for open and MIS cohorts. One-to-one exact matching produced balanced cohorts. After matching, length of stay ratios were compared using the delta method to calculate log-transformed CIs. Logistic regression models were used to estimate ORs for mortality, 30-day readmission, conversion to OS, and perioperative complications. Data analysis was performed in R Studio version 4.4.1 (Posit PBC) from March 2025 to February 2026.
Results
Among 2 443 304 procedures, 1 655 099 (67.7%) were elective and 788 205 (32.3%) were emergency (eFigure in Supplement 1). Patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between elective and emergency procedures (Table 1). Most patients were aged 45 to 64 years (939 123 patients [38.4%]). A total of 254 281 procedures (10.4%) were performed on Black patients, 2 189 023 (89.5%) were performed on White patients, and 1 231 252 (50.3%) were performed on female patients. In general, patients undergoing emergency procedures were older, more likely to be female, Black, with higher CCI, and more likely to be at urban, teaching, and larger facilities (Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of Patient, Clinical, and Hospital Characteristics by Surgical Setting.
| Characteristics | Participants, No. (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elective (n = 1 655 099) | Emergency (n = 788 205) | ||
| Age, y | |||
| 18-34 | 214 590 (13.0) | 132 410 (16.8) | <.001 |
| 35-44 | 219 405 (13.3) | 100 703 (12.8) | |
| 45-64 | 673 220 (40.7) | 265 903 (33.7) | |
| ≥65 | 547 884 (33.1) | 289 189 (36.7) | |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 771 787 (46.6) | 459 465 (58.3) | <.001 |
| Male | 883 262 (53.4) | 328 721 (41.7) | |
| Unknown | 50 (≤0.1) | 19 (≤0.1) | |
| Race and ethnicity | |||
| Non-Hispanic Black | 155 355 (9.4) | 98 926 (12.6) | <.001 |
| Non-Hispanic White | 1 499 744 (90.6) | 689 279 (87.4) | |
| Payer type | |||
| Commercial | 788 144 (47.6) | 275 662 (35.0) | <.001 |
| Medicaid | 186 657 (11.3) | 122 197 (15.5) | |
| Medicare | 572 901 (34.6) | 307 298 (39.0) | |
| Other | 107 397 (6.5) | 83 048 (10.5) | |
| Modality | |||
| Open | 517 252 (31.2) | 194 113 (24.6) | <.001 |
| Minimally invasive | 1 137 847 (68.8) | 594 092 (75.4) | |
| Comorbidities (CCI) | |||
| 0 | 1 055 364 (63.8) | 389 854 (49.5) | <.001 |
| 1 | 315 842 (19.1) | 172 774 (21.9) | |
| ≥2 | 283 893 (17.2) | 225 577 (28.6) | |
| Hospital location | |||
| Urban | 1 370 159 (82.8) | 687 997 (87.3) | <.001 |
| Rural | 284 940 (17.0) | 100 208 (12.7) | |
| Hospital teaching status | |||
| Nonteaching | 967 995 (58.5) | 452 595 (57.4) | <.001 |
| Teaching | 687 104 (41.5) | 335 610 (42.6) | |
| Hospital region | |||
| Midwest | 465 083 (28.1) | 163 269 (20.7) | <.001 |
| Northeast | 185 108 (11.2) | 103 264 (13.1) | |
| West | 235 140 (14.2) | 130 085 (16.5) | |
| South | 769 768 (46.5) | 391 587 (49.7) | |
| No. of beds | |||
| 0-99 | 169 673 (10.3) | 52 392 (6.7) | <.001 |
| 100-499 | 1 040 859 (62.9) | 505 866 (64.2) | |
| ≥500 | 444 567 (26.9) | 229 947 (29.2) | |
| Procedures | |||
| Cholecystectomy | 572 435 (34.6) | 522 796 (66.3) | <.001 |
| Inguinal hernia repair | 420 189 (25.4) | 43 648 (5.5) | |
| Ventral hernia repair | 425 809 (25.7) | 74 631 (9.5) | |
| Colorectal resection | 236 574 (14.3) | 147 222 (18.7) | |
Race and Surgical Setting
Black patients were more likely than White patients to undergo emergency procedures (98 926 [38.9%] Black vs 689 279 [31.5%] White patients). After adjustment for demographic, clinical, procedure, and hospital factors, Black patients had 29% greater odds of undergoing an emergency rather than elective procedure compared with White patients (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.28-1.30; P < .001) (Table 2).
Table 2. Association Between Race and Ethnicity and Surgical Setting.
| Race and ethnicity | Procedures, No. | Emergency procedure, No. (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | Adjusteda | |||
| Non-Hispanic Black | 254 281 | 98 926 (38.9) | 1.39 (1.37-1.40)b | 1.29 (1.28-1.30)b |
| Non-Hispanic White | 2 189 023 | 689 279 (31.5) | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.
Adjusted for age, sex, payer status, procedures, Charlson Comorbidity Index, obesity indicator, hospital location, hospital teaching status, hospital size, and hospital region.
Significant at the P < .05 level.
Race and Surgical Modality Within EGS
Among emergency cases, 27 340 Black patients (27.6%) and 166 773 White patients (24.2%) underwent OS. After adjustment, Black patients had 6% greater odds of undergoing open rather than MIS compared with White patients (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08; P < .001) (Table 3; eTable 3 in Supplement 1).
Table 3. Association Between Race and Ethnicity and Surgical Modality for Emergency General Surgery Procedures.
| Race and ethnicity | Procedures, No. | Open, No. (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | Adjusteda | |||
| Non-Hispanic Black | 98 926 | 27 340 (27.6) | 1.20 (1.18-1.22)b | 1.06 (1.03-1.08)b |
| Non-Hispanic White | 689 279 | 166 773 (24.2) | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.
Adjusted for age, sex, payer status, procedures, Charlson Comorbidity Index, obesity indicator, hospital location, hospital teaching status, hospital size, and hospital region.
Significant at the P < .05 level.
Race and Surgical Outcomes by Modality
Before matching, 27 340 Black and 166 773 White patients underwent open emergency surgery, while 71 586 Black and 522 506 White patients underwent emergent MIS. Black patients had significantly longer overall (0.6 to 0.1 days) and postoperative (0.4 to 0.6 days) length of stay for both open and MIS procedures (eTable 4 in Supplement 1). For other outcomes, Black patients had equivalent (30-day readmission) or better (eg, aOR mortality, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90) outcomes in the open cohort and equivalent (perioperative complications) or worse (mortality, conversion to OS, and 30-day readmission) outcomes in the MIS cohort (eg, aOR for mortality, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10-1.37) (eTable 5 in Supplement 1).
Baseline differences between Black and White patients were observed in both open and MIS cohorts, particularly across age, payer type, and hospital size (eTables 6 and 7 in Supplement 1). After exact 1:1 matching, 27 209 OS pairs and 71 448 MIS pairs were created. In the matched cohorts, Black patients continued to experience longer overall (0.6 to 1.5 days) and postoperative (0.6 – 0.8 days) length of stay compared with White patients for both modalities (Table 4). The pattern of surgical outcomes persisted; Black patients had equivalent (30-day readmission) or better (mortality and perioperative complications) outcomes in the open cohort (eg, aOR mortality, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and equivalent (perioperative complications and mortality) or worse (30-day readmission and conversion to OS) outcomes in the MIS cohort (eg, aOR mortality, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.33) (Table 5).
Table 4. Association Between Race and Ethnicity and Length of Stay in Matched Emergency General Surgery Cohorts by Surgical Modality.
| Surgical modality and length of stay, d | Non-Hispanic patients, mean (SD) | Ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | Black | ||
| Open | |||
| Overall | 8.6 (10.3) | 9.7 (11.8) | 1.11 (1.05-1.18)a |
| Postoperative | 7.0 (8.8) | 7.7 (9.6) | 1.10 (1.04-1.16)a |
| MIS | |||
| Overall | 3.4 (5.4) | 3.9 (6.2) | 1.16 (1.13-1.20)a |
| Postoperative | 2.2 (4.1) | 2.6 (4.7) | 1.16 (1.13-1.20)a |
Significant at the P < .05 level.
Table 5. Association Between Race and Ethnicity and Surgical Outcomes in Matched Emergency General Surgery Cohorts by Surgical Modality.
| Surgical modality and outcome | Non-Hispanic patients, No. events (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | Black | ||
| Open | |||
| Perioperative complications | 17 438 (64.1) | 17 039 (62.6) | 0.94 (0.91-0.97)a |
| 30-d readmission | 3082 (11.3) | 3011 (11.1) | 0.97 (0.92-1.03) |
| Mortality at encounter | 1376 (5.1) | 1258 (4.6) | 0.91 (0.84-0.98)a |
| MIS | |||
| Perioperative complications | 21 523 (30.1) | 21 729 (30.4) | 1.01 (0.99-1.04) |
| 30-d readmission | 4118 (5.8) | 4384 (6.1) | 1.07 (1.02-1.12)a |
| Mortality at encounter | 329 (0.5) | 376 (0.5) | 1.14 (0.99-1.33) |
| Conversion to open | 2440 (3.4) | 2709 (3.8) | 1.12 (1.05-1.18)a |
Abbreviations: MIS, minimally invasive surgery; OR, odds ratio.
Significant at the P < .05 level.
Discussion
In this retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative database, we examined differences in surgical setting, modality, and outcomes between Black and White patients undergoing elective and EGS procedures. The analysis found that Black patients had greater odds of undergoing emergency procedures, and when surgery was performed emergently, were more likely to undergo an open approach compared with White patients. Black patients undergoing MIS procedures also had higher odds of conversion to OS. After propensity matching, these disparities persisted, indicating that they were not fully explained by patient, clinical, or hospital variables used in the adjusted analysis.
Our findings are consistent with prior work documenting racial disparities across surgical specialties, including colorectal surgery and ventral hernia repair, that persist after adjustment for comorbidities, frailty, socioeconomic status, and hospital factors.23,24,25,26 Black patients are also known to experience reduced access to MIS in elective settings across urologic, gynecologic, oncologic, and colorectal procedures.27,28,29,30,31 Only recently have investigations explored differential MIS use by race in general surgery. A propensity-matched analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database found that Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo LS for inguinal hernia repair, cholecystectomy, colectomy, and appendectomy compared with White patients; however, this study did not differentiate between elective and emergency procedures.32 Our study expands on this literature by focusing specifically on disparities in the emergent setting, providing novel insight into both access and outcomes for EGS.
By stratifying patients by both surgical setting and modality, our investigation highlights how these factors interact to shape racial disparities. One possible explanation is that Black patients may present with more advanced disease due to cumulative social, economic, and environmental stressors (termed the health weathering effect),7 which could increase the likelihood of OS. The weathering hypothesis attributes worsened health outcomes among marginalized populations to accelerated cellular aging brought on by combined stressors experienced over time, which may not only account for presentation with more advanced surgical disease, but also influence the ability of patients from marginalized populations to tolerate and recover from surgery. Our finding that Black patients who underwent open EGS had lower adjusted odds of complications and mortality suggests that disease-specific severity may not fully account for the lower rates of MIS use. Prior analyses have shown increased adjusted odds of complications and mortality for Black patients across common procedures regardless of modality,13 suggesting that differences in acuity or operative approach alone do not explain the observed disparities. The persistence of worse outcomes among Black patients in MIS but not in open procedures raises the possibility that structural factors such as geographic variation in MIS training and surgeon experience also play a role. Indeed, prior work has shown that marginalized patients are less likely to be treated by high-volume surgeons, and higher surgeon volume is associated with narrowing outcome disparities.33,34,35 While the health weathering effect may partially explain the observed differences in MIS use and outcomes experienced by Black patients, it does not account for the increased odds of emergency presentation for Black patients observed in this study, which likely reflects ongoing differences in access to surgical care. Although patients in this investigation were matched for hospital characteristics and payer status, there are likely unmeasured socioeconomic and cultural factors that influence the difference in emergency surgery rate between Black and White patients. Cultural factors such as mistrust toward the health care system among Black patients have been well-documented,36 and past investigations have reported that Black patients have a higher rate of refusing surgical care.37,38 Additionally, practitioner bias toward Black patients may contribute to the increased odds of emergency surgery, as Black patients are less likely to undergo diagnostic imaging in the emergency department39 and are less likely to receive surgical consultation for EGS conditions,14 which may lead to re-presentation after progression of disease and need for emergency intervention.
The implications of these findings extend to both clinical practice and policy. Quantifying disparities in surgical setting, modality, and outcomes underscores the inequities faced by marginalized populations in accessing high-quality EGS care. As marginalized patients interact with the health care system, lack of access to evidence-based practices such as MIS may contribute to cumulative disadvantage and health weathering. Addressing these disparities will require multifaceted approaches, including expanding referral pathways, enhancing MIS training and capacity, and reducing geographic and economic barriers to specialized surgical care. At the policy level, targeted efforts to improve equitable access to MIS may help reduce reliance on emergency procedures, enhance outcomes, and mitigate the broader social and economic consequences of surgical inequities.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. Disease-specific clinical details, such as hemodynamic status, peritonitis, severity of diverticulitis, cholecystitis grade, or hernia incarceration or strangulation, are not captured in the database and may influence operative approach. Similarly, referral patterns, patient preferences, and other unmeasured social or political determinants of health could contribute to residual confounding. We restricted our analysis to non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients due to limited racial and ethnic categorization within the PHD, which precluded meaningful analysis of Hispanic, Asian, multiracial, or other populations who may face similar disparities. Nonetheless, our study’s strengths include its large sample size, multiyear scope, and availability of geographic, insurance, and hospital-level variables not captured in NSQIP, allowing for robust adjustment and propensity matching.
Conclusions
In this national cohort study of 2.4 million procedures, Black patients had significantly higher odds of undergoing emergency surgery and open procedures compared with White patients, even after adjustment for clinical and hospital factors. These persistent disparities reflect structural inequities in emergency general surgery and demand targeted, equity-focused interventions in surgical practice and health systems.
eTable 1. CPT and ICD-10 Codes for 4 Procedures of Interest and Modalities
eTable 2. Codes Used to Identify Perioperative Complications
eTable 3. Distribution of Black and White Patients Across Emergency General Surgery Procedures by Surgical Modality
eTable 4. Unadjusted Length of Stay Estimates by Surgical Modality (Open vs Minimally Invasive) in Emergency General Surgery Procedures
eTable 5. Unadjusted Odds Ratios for Clinical Outcomes by Surgical Modality (Open vs Minimally Invasive) in Emergency General Surgery Procedures
eTable 6. Baseline Differences Between Non-Hispanic Black and White Patients in the MIS EGS Cohort Before and After Matching
eTable 7. Baseline Differences Between Non-Hispanic Black and White Patients in the Open EGS Cohort Before and After Matching
eFigure. Study Participant Flow
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Gale SC, Shafi S, Dombrovskiy VY, Arumugam D, Crystal JS. The public health burden of emergency general surgery in the United States: a 10-year analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample–2001 to 2010. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(2):202-208. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Farhat JS, Falvo AJ, Horst MH, et al. Are the frail destined to fail?: Frailty index as a predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(3):S65. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.06.147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Armenia SJ, Pentakota SR, Merchant AM. Socioeconomic factors and mortality in emergency general surgery: trends over a 20-year period. J Surg Res. 2017;212:178-186. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Pines JM, Zocchi MS, Black BS, et al. ; US Acute Care Solutions Research Group . The cost shifting economics of United States emergency department professional services (2016-2019). Ann Emerg Med. 2023;82(6):637-646. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.04.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Batun A, Kafdag EE, Gunduz H, et al. Emergency department overcrowding: causes and solutions. Emerg Crit Care Med. 2023;3(4):171-176. doi: 10.1097/EC9.0000000000000078 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Causey MW, McVay D, Hatch Q, et al. The impact of race on outcomes following emergency surgery: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program assessment. Am J Surg. 2013;206(2):172-179. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.11.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Forde AT, Crookes DM, Suglia SF, Demmer RT. The weathering hypothesis as an explanation for racial disparities in health: a systematic review. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;33:1-18.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2019.02.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shen YC, Hsia RY. Changes in emergency department access between 2001 and 2005 among general and vulnerable populations. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(8):1462-1469. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.175828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Khubchandani JA, Shen C, Ayturk D, Kiefe CI, Santry HP. Disparities in access to emergency general surgery care in the United States. Surgery. 2018;163(2):243-250. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.07.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ng AP, Cho NY, Kim S, et al. National analysis of racial disparities in emergent surgery for colorectal cancer. Surg Open Sci. 2024;18:35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.sopen.2024.01.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hall EC, Hashmi ZG, Zafar SN, Zogg CK, Cornwell EE III, Haider AH. Racial/ethnic disparities in emergency general surgery: explained by hospital-level characteristics? Am J Surg. 2015;209(4):604-609. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Do YK, Carpenter WR, Spain P, et al. Race, healthcare access and physician trust among prostate cancer patients. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21(1):31-40. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9431-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Haider AH, Schneider EB, Sriram N, et al. Unconscious race and class bias: its association with decision making by trauma and acute care surgeons. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(3):409-416. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Roberts SE, Rosen CB, Keele LJ, et al. Rates of surgical consultations after emergency department admission in Black and White Medicare patients. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(12):1097-1104. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.4959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Arnold M, Elhage S, Schiffern L, et al. Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(5):2258-2265. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07016-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lunardi N, Abou-Zamzam A, Florecki KL, et al. Robotic technology in emergency general surgery cases in the era of minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg. 2024;159(5):493-499. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Loehrer AP, Song Z, Auchincloss HG, Hutter MM. Massachusetts health care reform and reduced racial disparities in minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(12):1116-1122. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.2750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Porras Fimbres DC, Nussbaum DP, Mosca PJ. Racial disparities in time to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Am J Surg. 2023;226(2):261-270. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Pinc AI Helathcare Database . Data that informs and performs. Published online December 2024. Accessed February 20, 2026. https://offers.pinc-ai.com/PINC-AI-Healthcare-Database-White-Paper-LP.html
- 21.STROBE . STROBE. Accessed March 25, 2025. https://www.strobe-statement.org/
- 22.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jacobs MA, Schmidt S, Hall DE, et al. Differentiating urgent from elective cases matters in minority populations: developing an ordinal “desirability of outcome ranking” to increase granularity and sensitivity of surgical outcomes assessment. J Am Coll Surg. 2023;237(3):545-555. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Johnson ST, Bangla V, Cuadros A, Agathis AZ, Wu J, Divino CM. Analyzing racial and ethnic disparities among geriatric patients undergoing elective versus emergent colorectal procedures: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis. Am J Surg. Published online May 7, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Katzen M, Sacco J, Ku D, et al. Impact of race and ethnicity on rates of emergent ventral hernia repair (VHR): has anything changed? Surg Endosc. 2023;37(7):5561-5569. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09732-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Valbuena VSM, Dualeh SHA, Kunnath N, Dimick JB, Ibrahim AM. Disparities in unplanned surgery amongst medicare beneficiaries. Am J Surg. 2023;225(4):602-607. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kim SP, Boorjian SA, Shah ND, et al. Disparities in access to hospitals with robotic surgery for patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(2):514-520. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Price JT, Zimmerman LD, Koelper NC, Sammel MD, Lee S, Butts SF. Social determinants of access to minimally invasive hysterectomy: reevaluating the relationship between race and route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):572.e1-572.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gurau A, Monton O, Greer JB, Nicolson NG, Johnston FM. Racial disparities in the use of minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2025;131(6):1118-1124. doi: 10.1002/jso.28051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hayden DM, Korous KM, Brooks E, et al. Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(5):3306-3320. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09793-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Booth A, Ford W, Brennan E, Magwood G, Forster E, Curran T. Towards equitable surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review of disparities in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2022;28(9):1405-1419. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izab237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wood KL, Haider SF, Bui A, Leitman IM. Access to common laparoscopic general surgical procedures: do racial disparities exist? Surg Endosc. 2020;34(3):1376-1386. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06912-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Haider AH, Scott VK, Rehman KA, et al. Racial disparities in surgical care and outcomes in the United States: a comprehensive review of patient, provider, and systemic factors. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(3):482-92.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Epstein AJ, Gray BH, Schlesinger M. Racial and ethnic differences in the use of high-volume hospitals and surgeons. Arch Surg. 2010;145(2):179-186. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Apple AN, Mulugeta-Gordon L, Deagostino-Kelly M, et al. High-volume surgeons and reducing racial disparities in route of hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024;31(11):911-918. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(11):1773-1778. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.87.11.1773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Farjah F, Wood DE, Yanez ND III, et al. Racial disparities among patients with lung cancer who were recommended operative therapy. Arch Surg. 2009;144(1):14-18. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2008.519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.McCann J, Artinian V, Duhaime L, Lewis JW Jr, Kvale PA, DiGiovine B. Evaluation of the causes for racial disparity in surgical treatment of early stage lung cancer. Chest. 2005;128(5):3440-3446. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.5.3440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Schrager JD, Patzer RE, Kim JJ, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in diagnostic imaging utilization during adult emergency department visits in the United States, 2005 to 2014. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(8):1036-1045. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eTable 1. CPT and ICD-10 Codes for 4 Procedures of Interest and Modalities
eTable 2. Codes Used to Identify Perioperative Complications
eTable 3. Distribution of Black and White Patients Across Emergency General Surgery Procedures by Surgical Modality
eTable 4. Unadjusted Length of Stay Estimates by Surgical Modality (Open vs Minimally Invasive) in Emergency General Surgery Procedures
eTable 5. Unadjusted Odds Ratios for Clinical Outcomes by Surgical Modality (Open vs Minimally Invasive) in Emergency General Surgery Procedures
eTable 6. Baseline Differences Between Non-Hispanic Black and White Patients in the MIS EGS Cohort Before and After Matching
eTable 7. Baseline Differences Between Non-Hispanic Black and White Patients in the Open EGS Cohort Before and After Matching
eFigure. Study Participant Flow
Data Sharing Statement
