Literature DB >> 16430641

A 3-year review of The British Association of Urological Surgeons Section of Endourology Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Audit.

Kim Davenport1, Anthony G Timoney, Francis X Keeley, Adrian Joyce, Paul Downey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report and compare the data obtained from the BAUS UK national laparoscopic nephrectomy audit over the past 3 years.
METHODS: Each year, consultants performing laparoscopic nephrectomy are invited to submit prospectively collected data on all patients so treated at their centres. The data from each centre is entered into a nationally established database using a standard data-collection sheet. The indications for surgery, and data during and after surgery are collected. Since 2001, data were reported on 1294 laparoscopic nephrectomies.
RESULTS: Over the 3 years, the number of centres returning data has increased from 25 to 48. In 2002, data on 263 nephrectomies were returned; by 2004, this had increased to 598. In all three audits, most cases were for nonfunctioning kidneys and renal cell carcinoma, with transitional cell carcinoma and stones forming a smaller proportion. Over the 3 years, the mean (range) operative duration has reduced from 173 (89-335) to 166 (42-395) min. The median postoperative stay remained at 4-5 days, with a wide range reflecting other than clinical reasons for delayed discharge. The mortality rate remained low, at 0.7% and 0.2%, respectively, for 2002 and 2004. The mean conversion rate remained at 6-8% and the mean complication rate at 17-2%, but the proportion of major complications reduced from 10% to 4%. The transfusion rate also reduced from 10% to 7%. The operative duration, transfusion and conversion rates were higher in those centres performing fewer than 12 cases/year than in those performing at least one case per month.
CONCLUSION: The BAUS laparoscopic nephrectomy audit is an effective method for ensuring both the safe and widespread implementation of this relatively new technique to the UK, and compliance with internationally accepted standards. This audit has shown differences in clinical outcomes in favour of high-volume centres, which may help to inform decisions about the centralization of urological laparoscopy services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16430641     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05916.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  4 in total

Review 1.  Appraising the quality of care in surgery.

Authors:  Erik K Mayer; Andre Chow; Justin A Vale; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  One hand is better than two: conversion from pure laparoscopic to the hand-assisted approach during difficult nephrectomy.

Authors:  Nishanthan Mahesan; Sirazum M Choudhury; M Shamim Khan; Declan G Murphy; Prokar Dasgupta
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Comparison of single- versus multicenter outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device.

Authors:  Edward Morcos; Daniel Altman; Daniel Hunde; Christian Falconer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  Influence of hospital volume on nephrectomy mortality and complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis stratified by surgical type.

Authors:  Ray C J Hsu; Theodosia Salika; Jonathan Maw; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; James N Armitage
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.