Literature DB >> 20020298

Quantitative comparison of the difficulty of performing laparoscopic colectomy at different tumor locations.

Kazuaki Kuwabara1, Shinya Matsuda, Kiyohide Fushimi, Koichi B Ishikawa, Hiromasa Horiguchi, Kenji Fujimori.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic approaches of colectomy for colonic cancer are increasingly surpassing the mainstream open colectomy approach. Impact of disease variables, such as tumor location, has not been adequately measured in quality improvement initiatives. Quantitative analysis concerning the difficulty performing these procedures and differences in postoperative care depending on tumor site will contribute to the development of training programs and to the assessment of quality of care strategies.
METHODS: A total of 3,765 cases received laparoscopic colectomy (LC). Patient demographics, weighted comorbidities, procedure-related complications, stapling devices, operating room (OR) time, postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), or total charges (TC) were categorized and compared based on tumor location: cecum to ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon. Multivariate analyses determined the impact of tumor location on postoperative LOS, TC, OR time, and complications.
RESULTS: Sigmoid colon was the most frequent tumor placement (40.5%). Significant differences in age, gender, frequency of blood transfusion, use of stapling devices, OR time, and postoperative LOS were observed among tumor locations. Transverse colon was the most significant determinant of postoperative LOS and TC, whereas descending colon tumors correlated with increased OR time. Greater OR time was associated with more postoperative resource use and complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Tumor location, complications, and OR time affected postoperative resource use, whereas greater OR time signified an increased occurrence of complications. Developers of LC training programs or healthcare policy makers should consider the quantitative impact of tumor locations when attempting to improve effective skill training or to survey the quality of LC performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20020298     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0292-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  20 in total

1.  New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality.

Authors:  Vijaya Sundararajan; Toni Henderson; Catherine Perry; Amanda Muggivan; Hude Quan; William A Ghali
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Profiling hospital performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on the administrative data of four teaching hospitals in Japan.

Authors:  Masahiro Hirose; Yuichi Imanaka; Tatsuro Ishizaki; Miho Sekimoto; Yoshiaki Harada; Kazuaki Kuwabara; Kenshi Hayashida; Eun-Hwan Oh; S Edward Evans
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Faek R Jamali; Asaad M Soweid; Hani Dimassi; Charles Bailey; Joel Leroy; Jacques Marescaux
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2008-08

4.  Outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy at academic centers.

Authors:  J Esteban Varela; Massimo Asolati; Sergio Huerta; Thomas Anthony
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  The new ACS/APDS Skills Curriculum: moving the learning curve out of the operating room.

Authors:  Daniel J Scott; Gary L Dunnington
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Linear stapling of the short gastric vessels reduces blood loss and splenectomy at oesophageal and gastric surgery.

Authors:  J F Dowdall; O J McAnena
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open colectomy for cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes from 121 hospitals.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Ryan P Merkow; Heidi Nelson; Edward Wang; Clifford Y Ko; Nathaniel J Soper
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database.

Authors:  Conor P Delaney; Eunice Chang; Anthony J Senagore; Michael Broder
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Surgeon volume does not predict outcomes in the setting of technical credentialing: results from a randomized trial in colon cancer.

Authors:  David W Larson; Peter W Marcello; Sergio W Larach; Steven D Wexner; Adrian Park; John Marks; Anthony J Senagore; Alan G Thorson; Tonia M Young-Fadok; Erin Green; Daniel J Sargent; Heidi Nelson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial.

Authors:  Peter J Hewett; Randall A Allardyce; Philip F Bagshaw; Christopher M Frampton; Francis A Frizelle; Nicholas A Rieger; J Shona Smith; Michael J Solomon; Jacqueline H Stephens; Andrew R L Stevenson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position.

Authors:  Omar A Jarral; Sanjay Purkayastha; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi; George B Hanna; Emmanouil Zacharakis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparative study of oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic vs. open surgery in transverse colon cancer.

Authors:  Woo Ram Kim; Se Jin Baek; Chang Woo Kim; Hyun A Jang; Min Soo Cho; Sung Uk Bae; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Seung Hyuk Baik; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim; Seung Kuk Sohn
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 1.859

3.  A novel method for lymphadenectomy along the left laryngeal recurrent nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Yong Xi; Zhenkai Ma; Yaxing Shen; Hao Wang; Mingxiang Feng; Lijie Tan; Qun Wang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multi-incision laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: a propensity-score-matched analysis of 214 cases.

Authors:  Goutaro Katsuno; Masaki Fukunaga; Kunihiko Nagakari; Seichiro Yoshikawa; Daisuke Azuma; Shintaro Kohama
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Short-term Outcomes of a Laparoscopic Left Hemicolectomy for Descending Colon Cancer: Retrospective Comparison with an Open Left Hemicolectomy.

Authors:  Kil-Su Han; Gyu-Seog Choi; Jun-Seok Park; Hye Jin Kim; Soo Yeon Park; Soo-Han Jun
Journal:  J Korean Soc Coloproctol       Date:  2010-10-31

6.  The rationale behind complete mesocolic excision (CME) and a central vascular ligation for colon cancer in open and laparoscopic surgery : proceedings of a consensus conference.

Authors:  K Søndenaa; P Quirke; W Hohenberger; K Sugihara; H Kobayashi; H Kessler; G Brown; V Tudyka; A D'Hoore; R H Kennedy; N P West; S H Kim; R Heald; K E Storli; A Nesbakken; B Moran
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Efficient and Safe Method for Splenic Flexure Mobilization in Laparoscopic Left Hemicolectomy: A Propensity Score-weighted Cohort Study.

Authors:  Yu-Jen Hsu; Yih-Jong Chern; Jing-Rong Jhuang; Wen-Sy Tsai; Jy-Ming Chiang; Hsin-Yuan Hung; Tzong-Yun Tsai; Jeng-Fu You
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 1.719

8.  Operative time and outcome of enhanced recovery after surgery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Oliver J Harrison; Neil J Smart; Paul White; Adela Brigic; Elinor R Carlisle; Andrew S Allison; Jonathan B Ockrim; Nader K Francis
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.