Literature DB >> 19688386

Hospital volume as a surrogate for laparoscopically assisted colectomy.

Anand Singla1, Jessica P Simons, James E Carroll, Youfu Li, Sing Chau Ng, Jennifer F Tseng, Shimul A Shah.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic colectomy is reported to have favorable outcomes compared with open colectomy, it has yet to gain widespread acceptance in the United States. This study sought to investigate whether hospital volume is a factor determining the use of laparoscopy for colectomy.
METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 1998-2006), patients undergoing elective colon resection with and without laparoscopy were identified. Unique hospital identifiers were used to divide hospital volume into equal thirds, with the highest third defined as high volume and the lower two-thirds defined as low volume. The primary end point was the use of laparoscopy after adjustment for patient and hospital covariates.
RESULTS: A total of 209,769 colon resections were performed in the study period. Overall, only 8,407 (4%) of these resections were performed with laparoscopy. High-volume centers, which tended to be large, urban teaching hospitals, treated more patients in the highest income bracket and patients with private insurance than low-volume hospitals (p < 0.0001). High-volume hospitals used laparoscopy more often than low-volume hospitals (5.2% vs. 3.4%). After adjustment for covariates using multivariate analysis and propensity scores, analysis showed that patients with private insurance and those in the highest income bracket were more likely to receive laparoscopy (p < 0.0009). High-volume hospitals were more likely to perform laparoscopically assisted colectomy than low-volume hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.56).
CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic differences appear to exist between high- and low-volume hospitals in the use of laparoscopy. High hospital volume is associated with an increased likelihood that colectomy will be performed with laparoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19688386     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0665-2

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


  27 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Impact of hospital volume on postoperative morbidity and mortality following a colectomy for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Gilaad G Kaplan; Ellen P McCarthy; John Z Ayanian; Joshua Korzenik; Richard Hodin; Bruce E Sands
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  High volume and outcome after liver resection: surgeon or center?

Authors:  Robert W Eppsteiner; Nicholas G Csikesz; Jessica P Simons; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer: results from a large nationwide population-based analysis.

Authors:  Scott R Steele; Tommy A Brown; Robert M Rush; Matthew J Martin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  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

6.  Laparoscopic vs open total colectomy: a case-matched comparative study.

Authors:  N Pokala; C P Delaney; A J Senagore; K M Brady; V W Fazio
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study.

Authors:  Emily V A Finlayson; Philip P Goodney; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-07

8.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Trends in surgical management for acute cholecystitis.

Authors:  Nicholas G Csikesz; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Socioeconomic and racial predictors of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy for selected benign diseases: analysis of 341487 hysterectomies.

Authors:  Haim Arie Abenhaim; Ricardo Azziz; Jianfang Hu; Alfred Bartolucci; Togas Tulandi
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.137

View more
  12 in total

1.  From evidence to a day-to-day laparoscopic colectomy.

Authors:  Ernst Hanisch; Dimosthenis E Ziogas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopy vs open colectomy among nonmetastatic colon cancer patients: an analysis using the National Cancer Data Base.

Authors:  Zhiyuan Zheng; Ahmedin Jemal; Chun Chieh Lin; Chung-Yuan Hu; George J Chang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Comparison of the outcomes for laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by the same surgeon between a low-volume hospital and a high-volume center.

Authors:  Min Gyu Kim; Sung Joon Kwon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The volume-outcome relationship in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a population-based study using propensity score matching.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; King-Teh Lee; Chong-Chi Chiu; Hao-Hsien Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Barriers to laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: a national analysis.

Authors:  Alexander T Hawkins; Molly M Ford; M Benjamin Hopkins; Roberta L Muldoon; Jonathan P Wanderer; Alexander A Parikh; Timothy M Geiger
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  What have we learned in minimally invasive colorectal surgery from NSQIP and NIS large databases? A systematic review.

Authors:  Gabriela Batista Rodríguez; Andrea Balla; Santiago Corradetti; Carmen Martinez; Pilar Hernández; Jesús Bollo; Eduard M Targarona
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Specialization and utilization after hepatectomy in academic medical centers.

Authors:  Joshua J Shaw; Heena P Santry; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 2.192

10.  Disparities in the use of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal disease.

Authors:  Celia N Robinson; Courtney J Balentine; Shubhada Sansgiry; David H Berger
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.