Literature DB >> 12739116

Predicting conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Fellowship training may be an advantage.

C M Schlachta1, J Mamazza, R Grégoire, S E Burpee, K T Pace, E C Poulin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has clear advantages over open surgery; however, the effectiveness of the approach depends on the conversion rate. The objective of this work was to prospectively validate a model that would predict conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
METHODS: A simple clinical model for predicting conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery was previously developed based on a multivariable logistic regression analysis of 367 procedures. This model was applied prospectively to a follow-up group of 248 procedures by the same team, including 54 procedures performed by one new fellowship-trained surgeon.
RESULTS: Patients in the follow-up group were more likely to have cancer (56% vs 44%, p = 0.007) and were more obese (median, 71.0 vs 66.0 kg; p < 0.001). The rate of conversion in the follow-up group was unchanged (8.9% vs 9.0%, p > 0.05). Despite expected trends toward increasing risk of conversion with weight level (<60 kg, 6.8%; 60-<90 kg, 9.0%; >90 kg, 12.1%; p > 0.05) and malignancy (10.1% vs 7.3%, p > 0.05), the model did not distinguish well between groups at risk for conversion. Contrary to the model, however, the fellowship-trained surgeon had a conversion rate that was not higher than that of the other, more experienced surgeons (7.3% vs 9.3%, p > 0.05) even though he was less experienced, and operating on patients who were more obese (median, 75.0 vs 70 kg; p = 0.02) and more likely to have cancer (59% vs 55%, p > 0.05). Recalculated conversion scores that excluded the inexperience point for the fellowship-trained surgeon showed a good fit for the model. Considering the original and follow-up experience together (615 cases), the model clearly stratifies patients into low (0 points), medium (1-2 points), and high risk (3-4 points) for conversion, with respective rates of 2.9%, 8.1%, and 20% ( p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This model appears to be a valid predictor of conversion to open surgery. Fellowship training may provide sufficient experience so that learning curve issues are redundant in early practice. This model now requires validation by other centers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12739116     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8920-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  18 in total

Review 1.  Defining a learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Authors:  C M Schlachta; J Mamazza; P A Seshadri; M Cadeddu; R Gregoire; E C Poulin
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.585

2.  The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies.

Authors:  C L Bennett; S J Stryker; M R Ferreira; J Adams; R W Beart
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1997-01

3.  What is the learning curve for laparoscopic colectomy?

Authors:  A J Senagore; M A Luchtefeld; J M Mackeigan
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 0.688

4.  Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jane C Weeks; Heidi Nelson; Shari Gelber; Daniel Sargent; Georgene Schroeder
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-01-16       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Predicting conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic colorectal resections. A simple clinical model.

Authors:  C M Schlachta; J Mamazza; P A Seshadri; M O Cadeddu; E C Poulin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Postoperative pain and fatigue after laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections. A prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  W Schwenk; B Böhm; J M Müller
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Laparoscopic versus conventional colorectal resection: a prospective randomised study of postoperative ileus and early postoperative feeding.

Authors:  W Schwenk; B Böhm; O Haase; T Junghans; J M Müller
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.445

8.  Laparoscopic-assisted colon resection.

Authors:  K A Zucker; D E Pitcher; D T Martin; R S Ford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report.

Authors:  J W Milsom; B Böhm; K A Hammerhofer; V Fazio; E Steiger; P Elson
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  Total laparoscopic proctocolectomy and laparoscopy-assisted proctocolectomy for inflammatory bowel disease: operative technique and preliminary report.

Authors:  C Thibault; E C Poulin
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1995-12
View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Surgical fellowship training in Canada: what is its current status and is improvement required?

Authors:  Markku T Nousiainen; David A Latter; David Backstein; Fiona Webster; Kenneth A Harris
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: learning curve and training implications.

Authors:  P R Shah; A Joseph; P N Haray
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Advanced laparoscopic training and outcomes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Linda Bohacek; David E Pace
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.089

4.  Technique of last resort: characteristics of patients undergoing open surgery in the laparoscopic era.

Authors:  Hamza Guend; David Y Lee; Elizabeth A Myers; Nipa D Gandhi; Vesna Cekic; Richard L Whelan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Surgical teaching does not increase the risk of intraoperative adverse events.

Authors:  Basile Pache; Fabian Grass; Nicolas Fournier; Martin Hübner; Nicolas Demartines; Dieter Hahnloser
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Age, is it an obstacle for older surgeons to learn laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer?

Authors:  Zhang Xing-mao; Hou Hui-rong; Wang Zi-nian; Wang Hong-ying; Hu Jun-jie; Wang Zheng; Liang Jian-wei; Bi Jian-jun; Zhou Hai-tao; Zhou Zhi-xiang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.064

7.  Development, validation and implementation of a monitoring tool for training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the English National Training Program.

Authors:  Danilo Miskovic; Susannah M Wyles; Fiona Carter; Mark G Coleman; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-11       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Conversions in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Martijn H G M van der Pas; Charlotte L Deijen; Gabor S A Abis; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Eva Haglind; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Miguel A Cuesta; Hendrik J Bonjer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  The minimally invasive approach is associated with reduced surgical site infections in obese patients undergoing proctectomy.

Authors:  R T Pasam; I O Esemuede; S A Lee-Kong; R P Kiran
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 10.  Radical prostatectomy: Hospital volumes and surgical volumes - does practice make perfect?

Authors:  Cydney Urbanek; Ryan Turpen; Charles J Rosser
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.