Literature DB >> 23598378

Growth of laparoscopic colectomy in the United States: analysis of regional and socioeconomic factors over time.

Ovunc Bardakcioglu1, Ashraf Khan, Christopher Aldridge, Jiajing Chen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to determine the growth pattern and current rate of laparoscopic partial colectomy in the United States and analyze various factors that influence the adaptation rate over time.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to have significant short- and long-term benefits compared with the open approach. Despite the evidence from multiple, prospective, randomized trials, the adoption rate in the Unites States is reported to be low.
METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Database was used to estimate the rate of laparoscopic partial colectomy in the United States for the years 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2009 and examine the growth pattern. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the impact of the following patient and hospital variables: age, sex, race, payer status, hospital region, and hospital location and teaching status. Significant factors were analyzed for changes over time.
RESULTS: Overall, 226,585 partial colectomies were identified. The rate of laparoscopic colectomy was 2.2% (878/38,264) for 1996, 2.7% (1175/42,166) for 2000, 5% (2336/44,817) for 2004, 15% (7548/42,903) for 2008, and 31.4% (14,610/31,888) for 2009. A noticeable change of the growth rate of laparoscopic partial colectomies was noted after 2004, with a significant increase and a possible tipping point after 2008.Urban hospital location [odds ratio (OR = 1.71)], teaching hospital status (OR = 1.21), and private insurance status (OR = 1.46) are significant hospital characteristics predicting the use of laparoscopy overall, but teaching hospital status is not significant after 2008 (OR = 1.51 in 1996 to OR = 1.09 in 2008). Age above 80 years significantly decreases the utilization of laparoscopy (OR = 0.78 for age 80-89 years and 0.69 for >90 years). African American race (OR = 0.84), Medicaid insurance status (OR = 0.52), and self-pay (0.6) are significant socioeconomic characteristics negatively influencing the use of the minimal invasive technique.
CONCLUSIONS: A marked increase in the rate of laparoscopic colectomy is seen in recent years. The minimal invasive technique seems to be increasingly used in nonteaching hospitals. Significant socioeconomic differences in access to minimal invasive techniques persist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23598378     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828faa66

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  29 in total

Review 1.  Need for simulation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery training.

Authors:  Valerio Celentano
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-09-27

Review 2.  Adoption of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: It Was Quite a Journey.

Authors:  Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2015-09

Review 3.  Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery after surgery programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Cheng-Le Zhuang; Dong-Dong Huang; Fan-Feng Chen; Chong-Jun Zhou; Bei-Shi Zheng; Bi-Cheng Chen; Xian Shen; Zhen Yu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database.

Authors:  Chong-Chi Chiu; Wan-Ting Hsu; James J Choi; Brandon Galm; Meng-Tse Gabriel Lee; Chia-Na Chang; Chia-Yu Carolyn Liu; Chien-Chang Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Matthew Whealon; Alessio Vinci; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2016-09

6.  Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons' conversion: a study of trends and costs.

Authors:  Priscila R Armijo; Spyridon Pagkratis; Eugene Boilesen; Tiffany Tanner; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Short-duration virtual reality simulation training positively impacts performance during laparoscopic colectomy in animal model: results of a single-blinded randomized trial : VR warm-up for laparoscopic colectomy.

Authors:  Sergio E A Araujo; Conor P Delaney; Victor E Seid; Antonio R Imperiale; Alexandre B Bertoncini; Sergio C Nahas; Ivan Cecconello
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  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

9.  Laparoscopic versus open colectomy: the impact of frailty on outcomes.

Authors:  Pankti Kothari; Dominick V Congiusta; Aziz M Merchant
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-04-16

10.  A comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for hepatic and pancreatic resections using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Aslam Ejaz; Teviah Sachs; Jin He; Gaya Spolverato; Kenzo Hirose; Nita Ahuja; Christopher L Wolfgang; Martin A Makary; Matthew Weiss; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.982

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.