Gaurav Banka1, Gavitt Woodard, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, John M Morton. 1. Stanford Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Section of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5655, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine national outcome differences between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing ORYGB and LRYGB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were number of procedures performed, patient and hospital characteristics, patient complications, mortality, length of stay, resource use, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators. Both demographic and outcomes variables were compared by either t test or χ2 analysis, with regression analysis adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: The ORYGB and LRYGB cohorts consisted of 41 094 and 115 177 cases, respectively. From 2005 to 2007, LRYGB was more commonly performed than ORYGB (72% vs 28%; P < .001) and at high-volume hospitals (69% vs 61%; P < .001). A higher percentage of ORYGB compared with LRYGB patients were Medicare (9.3% vs 7.1%) and Medicaid (10.4% vs 5.9%; P < .01) beneficiaries. More ORYGB patients compared with LRYGB patients were discharged with nonroutine dispositions (7.7% vs 2.4%; P = .005), died (0.2% vs 0.1%; P < .001), and had 1 or more complications (18.7% vs 12.3%; P < .001). All Patient Safety Indicator rates were higher for ORYGB. Patients who had ORYGB compared with LRYGB also had longer median lengths of stay (3.5 vs 2.4 days; P < .001) and higher total charges ($35 018 vs $32 671; P < .001). Patients who had LRYGB had a lower odds ratio than patients who had ORYGB for both mortality (odds ratio, 0.54; P < .001) and having 1 or more complications (odds ratio, 0.66; P < .001) even after adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSION: In this population-based study, LRYGB provided greater safety than ORYGB even after adjusting for patient-level socioeconomic and comorbidity differences.
OBJECTIVE: To determine national outcome differences between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing ORYGB and LRYGB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were number of procedures performed, patient and hospital characteristics, patient complications, mortality, length of stay, resource use, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators. Both demographic and outcomes variables were compared by either t test or χ2 analysis, with regression analysis adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: The ORYGB and LRYGB cohorts consisted of 41 094 and 115 177 cases, respectively. From 2005 to 2007, LRYGB was more commonly performed than ORYGB (72% vs 28%; P < .001) and at high-volume hospitals (69% vs 61%; P < .001). A higher percentage of ORYGB compared with LRYGB patients were Medicare (9.3% vs 7.1%) and Medicaid (10.4% vs 5.9%; P < .01) beneficiaries. More ORYGB patients compared with LRYGB patients were discharged with nonroutine dispositions (7.7% vs 2.4%; P = .005), died (0.2% vs 0.1%; P < .001), and had 1 or more complications (18.7% vs 12.3%; P < .001). All Patient Safety Indicator rates were higher for ORYGB. Patients who had ORYGB compared with LRYGB also had longer median lengths of stay (3.5 vs 2.4 days; P < .001) and higher total charges ($35 018 vs $32 671; P < .001). Patients who had LRYGB had a lower odds ratio than patients who had ORYGB for both mortality (odds ratio, 0.54; P < .001) and having 1 or more complications (odds ratio, 0.66; P < .001) even after adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSION: In this population-based study, LRYGB provided greater safety than ORYGB even after adjusting for patient-level socioeconomic and comorbidity differences.
Authors: Hind A Beydoun; May A Beydoun; Sharmin Hossain; Laurel Stadtmauer; Shaker M Eid; Alan B Zonderman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Joshua J Weis; Adnan A Alseidi; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Michael A Schweitzer; Yumi Hori; Vanessa Cheung; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Noëlle Geubbels; Sjoerd C Bruin; Yair I Z Acherman; Arnold W J M van de Laar; Marijke B Hoen; L Maurits de Brauw Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.129