Literature DB >> 18155565

Trends in adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in rural versus urban hospitals.

Jason A Kemp1, Randall S Zuckerman, Samuel R G Finlayson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For many general surgeons, the professional isolation of rural practice serves as an obstacle to the adoption of new techniques. Whether this obstacle impeded the dissemination of laparoscopy in rural settings is not known. STUDY
DESIGN: We performed a retrospective, descriptive comparison of the adoption rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in small rural versus urban hospitals in the US using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1988 to 1997. Additionally, we examined differences in in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital reintervention rates.
RESULTS: There were 4,985,465 cholecystectomies performed nationwide from 1988 to 1997. Over this time period, the proportion of procedures done laparoscopically increased from 2.5% to 76.6% for elective cholecystectomy and from 0.7% to 67.5% for urgent cholecystectomy. The proportion of elective procedures done laparoscopically increased sharply from 1989 to 1992, from 3.5% to 73.7%, and remained high in both rural and urban areas, with negligible difference in timing of adoption. Use of the laparoscopic approach for urgent cholecystectomy increased sharply from 1990 to 1992 (4.9% to 54.6%) and, since 1992, has increased similarly in both rural and urban areas. The adjusted in-hospital mortality rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy did not differ significantly between rural and urban hospitals (0.47% and 0.57%, respectively, p=0.6). The in-hospital reintervention rate was 0.88% for both rural and urban hospitals (p=0.98). There were no significant differences in mortality or reintervention rates when cases were stratified by admission type (elective versus urgent).
CONCLUSIONS: Most rural surgeons successfully overcame professional isolation in learning and adopting laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18155565     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.289

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  6 in total

1.  Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

Authors:  Steve Kwon; Richard Billingham; Ellen Farrokhi; Michael Florence; Daniel Herzig; Karen Horvath; Terry Rogers; Scott Steele; Rebecca Symons; Richard Thirlby; Mark Whiteford; David R Flum
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Nationwide trends in laparoscopic colectomy from 2000 to 2004.

Authors:  Jason A Kemp; Samuel R G Finlayson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Glove and instrument changing to prevent tumour seeding in cancer surgery: a survey of surgeons' beliefs and practices.

Authors:  D Berger-Richardson; R S Xu; R A Gladdy; J A McCart; A Govindarajan; C J Swallow
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Increased Risk of Depressive Disorder following Cholecystectomy for Gallstones.

Authors:  Ming-Chieh Tsai; Chao-Hung Chen; Hsin-Chien Lee; Herng-Ching Lin; Cha-Ze Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  GP Surgeons' Experiences of Training in British Columbia and Alberta: A Case Study of Enhanced Skills for Rural Primary Care providers.

Authors:  Jude Kornelsen; Stuart Iglesias; Nancy Humber; Nadine Caron; Stefan Grzybowski
Journal:  Can Med Educ J       Date:  2012-03-31

Review 6.  Minimally invasive surgery in gastrointestinal cancer: benefits, challenges, and solutions for underutilization.

Authors:  Osama H Hamed; Niraj J Gusani; Eric T Kimchi; Stephen M Kavic
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.