Literature DB >> 15135674

Useful benchmarks to evaluate outcomes after esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

L William Traverso1, Hiroyuki Shinchi, Donald E Low.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple publications have suggested that outcomes after complex operations are better at high-volume centers. However, of all the potential "outcomes" to measure, only mortality has been studied extensively. The broadest difference in mortality between low- and high-volume centers has been measured after esophagectomy (EG) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). If a low-volume center recorded high mortality, then a broader set of outcomes beyond mortality would be useful for self-assessment.
METHODS: Two single-surgeon prospective databases for outcomes of EG and PD were reviewed in a multispecialty clinic within a tertiary-referral, resident-training hospital. Between January 1996 and December 2002, 174 consecutive patients underwent EG performed by 1 surgeon (25 cases/y), and 232 consecutive patients underwent PD performed by another surgeon (34 cases/y). We measured hospital and 30-day mortality rate, mean operation time (OR time), mean estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL), mean length of stay (LOS), and the anastomotic leak rate. These outcomes were compared with those of recently published cases for EG and PD.
RESULTS: Mortality for both operations was zero. After EG, OR time was 394 minutes (literature = 336), EBL was 204 mL (literature = 964), transfusion rate was 3.5% (literature = 34%), LOS was 11.1 days (literature = 16.6), leak was 2.9% (literature = 9.1%), and reoperation was 1.7% (literature = not stated). After PD, OR time was 450 minutes (literature = 431), EBL was 382 mL (literature = 1,183), transfusion rate was 7.3% (literature = not stated), LOS was 11.2 days (literature = 17.8), leak was 6.5% (literature = 9.9%), and reoperation was 0.4% (literature = 3.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: These 2 single-surgeon series provide benchmarks to help better define acceptable outcomes after EG and PD. This assessment demonstrated lower mortality and LOS in a high-volume surgical practice. These outcomes are not associated with OR time but with lower EBL, less need for transfusion, and lower need for reoperation. Anastomotic leaks occurred in both series; however, this was not associated with mortality because of early recognition and the use of nonsurgical minimally invasive techniques. If mortality is high at a low-volume center, then the additional benchmarks of this study, in addition to mortality and LOS, could be used to lower mortality through self-assessment by identifying specific outcomes that need improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15135674     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  20 in total

1.  Comparing complications of esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy and potential impact on hospital systems utilizing the accordion severity grading system.

Authors:  Donald E Low; Madhankumar Kuppusamy; Yasushi Hashimoto; L William Traverso
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Achieving good perioperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a low-volume setting: a 25-year experience.

Authors:  Aljamir D Chedid; Marcio F Chedid; Leonardo V Winkelmann; Tomaz J M Grezzana Filho; Cleber D P Kruel
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2015-04

3.  Prediction of anastomotic leak and its prognosis in digestive surgery.

Authors:  Yoshio Haga; Yasuo Wada; Hitoshi Takeuchi; Koji Ikejiri; Masakazu Ikenaga
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Early perioperative outcomes and pancreaticoduodenectomy in a general surgery residency training program.

Authors:  Craig P Fischer; Johnny C Hong
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Improvement of delayed gastric emptying in pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Masaji Tani; Hiroshi Terasawa; Manabu Kawai; Shinomi Ina; Seiko Hirono; Kazuhisa Uchiyama; Hiroki Yamaue
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Antecolic gastrointestinal reconstruction with pylorus dilatation. Does it improve delayed gastric emptying after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Authors:  Konstantinos Manes; Dimitrios Lytras; Costas Avgerinos; Spiros Delis; Christos Dervenis
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.647

7.  Pancreaticoduodenal resection for malignancy in a low-volume center: long-term outcomes from a developing country.

Authors:  Abu Bakar Hafeez Bhatti; Mohammad Aasim Yusuf; Syed Ather Saeed Kazmi; Aamir Ali Syed
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Assessing the experience in complex hepatopancreatobiliary surgery among graduating chief residents: is the operative experience enough?

Authors:  Teviah E Sachs; Aslam Ejaz; Matthew Weiss; Gaya Spolverato; Nita Ahuja; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang; Kenzo Hirose; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Unplanned reoperation and reintervention after pancreatic resections: an analysis of risk factors.

Authors:  Odo Gangl; Uwe Fröschl; Wolfgang Hofer; Jürgen Huber; Thomas Sautner; Reinhold Függer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Esophagectomy--it's not just about mortality anymore: standardized perioperative clinical pathways improve outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Donald E Low; Sonia Kunz; Drew Schembre; Henry Otero; Tom Malpass; Alex Hsi; Guobin Song; Richard Hinke; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-08-31       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.