Literature DB >> 20610252

Predictors of major complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgeon, hospital, or patient?

Melissa M Murphy1, Sing-Chau Ng, Jessica P Simons, Nicholas G Csikesz, Shimul A Shah, Jennifer F Tseng.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of care has been proposed for complex operations based on hospital/surgeon volume-mortality relationships. Controversy exists about whether more common procedures should be performed at high-volume centers. Using mortality alone to assess routine operations is hampered by relatively low perioperative mortality. We used a large national database to analyze the risk of major in-hospital complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). STUDY
DESIGN: Patients undergoing LC were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 1998-2006 from states with surgeon/hospital identifiers. Previously validated major complications including acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary compromise, postoperative infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage, and reoperation were assessed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed and independent risk factors of complications were identified.
RESULTS: A total of 1,102,071 weighted patient discharges were identified, with a complication rate of 6.8%. Univariate analyses showed that advanced age, male gender, and higher Charlson Comorbidity Score were associated with higher complication rates (p < 0.0001). Higher surgeon volume (>or=36/year versus <12/year) and higher hospital volume (>or=225/year versus <or=120/year) were associated with fewer complications (6.7% versus 7.0%, 6.4% versus 7.0%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis showed that advanced age (65 years or older versus younger than 65 years; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.16; 95% CI, 2.01-2.32), male gender (AOR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Score 2 versus 0; AOR = 2.49; 95% CI, 2.34-2.65) were associated with complications. Neither surgeon nor hospital volume was independently associated with increased risk of complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Major in-hospital complications after LC are associated with individual patient characteristics rather than surgeon or hospital operative volumes. These results suggest regionalization of general surgical procedures might be unnecessary. Rather, careful patient selection and preoperative preparation can diminish overall complication rates. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20610252     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.050

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


  30 in total

1.  Outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion: is the surgeon's selection needed?

Authors:  Sandra C Donkervoort; Lea M Dijksman; Lincey C F de Nes; Pieter G Versluis; Joris Derksen; Michael F Gerhards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Procedure volume influences adherence to celiac disease guidelines.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.566

3.  The degree of gallbladder wall thickness and its impact on outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Shankar R Raman; Dovid Moradi; Bassem M Samaan; Umar S Chaudhry; Kamal Nagpal; John Morgan Cosgrove; Daniel T Farkas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The impact of body mass index on outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Daniel T Farkas; Dovid Moradi; David Moaddel; Kamal Nagpal; John Morgan Cosgrove
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a teaching operation: comparison of outcome between residents and attending surgeons in 1,747 patients.

Authors:  René Fahrner; Matthias Turina; Valentin Neuhaus; Othmar Schöb
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 3.445

6.  Influence of treatment center and hospital volume on survival for locally advanced cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Yongmei Huang; Cande V Ananth; Ana I Tergas; Cassandra Duffy; Israel Deutsch; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Gastric Bypass and Synchronous Cholecystectomy: a Matter of Numbers?

Authors:  Niccolo Petrucciani; Tarek Debs; Radwan Kassir; Imed Ben Amor; Jean Gugenheim
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.129

8.  Bile duct injury and morbidity following cholecystectomy: a need for improvement.

Authors:  Meredith Barrett; Horacio J Asbun; Hung-Lung Chien; L Michael Brunt; Dana A Telem
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  The effect of insurance status on outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Samantha J Neureuther; Kamal Nagpal; Arieh Greenbaum; John M Cosgrove; Daniel T Farkas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Nationwide outcomes of nontrauma splenectomy.

Authors:  A Y Zemlyak; P D Colavita; V A Augenstein; A L Walters; A E Lincourt; R F Sing; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.