Literature DB >> 19628097

Is the growth in laparoscopic surgery reproducible with more complex procedures?

Anand Singla1, Youfu Li, Sing Chau Ng, Nicholas G Csikesz, Jennifer F Tseng, Shimul A Shah.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic (LAP) surgery has experienced significant growth since the early 1990s and is now considered the standard of care for many procedures like cholecystectomy. Increased expertise, training, and technological advancements have allowed the development of more complex LAP procedures including the removal of solid organs. Unlike LAP cholecystectomy, it is unclear whether complex LAP procedures are being performed with the same growth today.
METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 1998 to 2006, patients who underwent elective LAP or open colectomy (n = 220,839), gastrectomy (n = 17,289), splenectomy (n = 9,174), nephrectomy (n = 64,171), or adrenalectomy (n = 5,556) were identified. The Elixhauser index was used to adjust for patient comorbidities. To account for patient selection and referral bias, a matched analysis was performed using propensity scores. The main endpoints were adjusted for in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay (LOS).
RESULTS: Complex LAP procedures account for a small percentage of total elective procedures (colectomy, 3.8%; splenectomy, 8.8%; gastrectomy, 2.4%; nephrectomy, 7.0%; and adrenalectomy, 14.2%). These procedures have been performed primarily at urban (94%) and teaching (64%) centers. Although all LAP procedures trended up, the growth was greatest in LAP colectomy and nephrectomy (P < .001). In a case-controlled analysis, there was a mortality benefit only for LAP colectomy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34-0.82) when compared with their respective open procedures. All LAP procedures except gastrectomy had a lower prolonged LOS compared with their open counterparts.
CONCLUSION: Despite the significant benefits of complex LAP procedures as measured by LOS and in-hospital mortality, the growth of these operations has been slow unlike the rapid acceptance of LAP cholecystectomy. Future studies to identify the possible causes of this slow growth should consider current training paradigms, technical capabilities, economic disincentive, and surgical specialization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19628097     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  9 in total

1.  Centre volume and resource consumption in liver transplantation.

Authors:  Christopher W Macomber; Joshua J Shaw; Heena Santry; Reza F Saidi; Nicolas Jabbour; Jennifer F Tseng; Adel Bozorgzadeh; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-06-10       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective piecewise linear regression analysis.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; Hao-Hsien Lee; Meng-Han Tsai; Chong-Chi Chiu; Yih-Huei Uen; King-Teh Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Single incision versus reduced port splenectomy--searching for the best alternative to conventional laparoscopic splenectomy.

Authors:  Julio Lopez Monclova; Eduardo M Targarona; Pablo Vidal; Yerald Peraza; Francisco Garcia; Carlos Rodriguez Otero; Luis Pallares; Carmen Balague; Manuel Trias
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Mentorship for participants in a laparoscopic colectomy course.

Authors:  Vanessa P Ho; Koiana Trencheva; Sharon L Stein; Jeffrey W Milsom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Effect of centre volume and high donor risk index on liver allograft survival.

Authors:  Deepak K Ozhathil; Youfu Li; Jillian K Smith; Jennifer F Tseng; Reza F Saidi; Adel Bozorgzadeh; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 3.647

6.  Contemporary trends in necrotizing soft-tissue infections in the United States.

Authors:  Charles M Psoinos; Julie M Flahive; Joshua J Shaw; Youfu Li; Sing Chau Ng; Jennifer F Tseng; Heena P Santry
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Trends in splenectomy: where does laparoscopy stand?

Authors:  Gurdeep S Matharoo; John N Afthinos; Karen E Gibbs
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  Increased complication rate in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy.

Authors:  Horatiu C Dancea; Vladan Obradovic; Jennifer Sartorius; Nicole Woll; Joseph A Blansfield
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2012 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy: cost and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Bradley R Davis; Andrew C Yoo; Matt Moore; Candace Gunnarsson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.