Literature DB >> 23897083

The impact of laparoscopic versus open approach on reoperation rate after segmental colectomy: a propensity analysis.

Paul J Speicher1, Brian R Englum, Betty Jiang, Ricardo Pietrobon, Christopher R Mantyh, John Migaly.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reoperation rate has not been well studied as a primary outcome when comparing laparoscopic with open approaches for colorectal resection. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of a laparoscopic approach on rate of reoperation after elective segmental colectomy.
METHODS: The NSQIP PUF for 2005-2011 was used to retrospectively identify patients who underwent open or laparoscopic elective segmental colectomy. The primary outcome measure was 30-day reoperation rate. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to determine the independent effect of surgical approach on rates of unplanned reoperation. This was validated with inverse propensity score weighting.
RESULTS: A total of 39,063 patients met the study inclusion criteria. A total of 1,702 reoperations were identified. After open approach, 5.1 % required reoperation, compared to 3.8 % in the laparoscopic group. After adjusting for confounders, open resection had 1.17-fold higher odds than laparoscopy for risk of reoperation, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). DISCUSSION: Using a large clinical dataset, we found that for segmental colectomy, there was not a statistically significant difference in odds of return to the operating room for laparoscopic versus open surgical approach. Reoperation is a relatively rare but costly complication and remains a potential area for quality improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23897083      PMCID: PMC4336176          DOI: 10.1007/s11605-013-2289-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  15 in total

1.  Single measures of performance do not reflect overall institutional quality in colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Alex M Almoudaris; Elaine M Burns; Alex Bottle; Paul Aylin; Ara Darzi; Charles Vincent; Omar Faiz
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Can the incidence of unplanned reoperations be used as an indicator of quality of care in surgery?

Authors:  Hidde M Kroon; Paul J Breslau; Jan Willem H P Lardenoye
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.852

3.  Re-interventions, readmissions and discharge destination: modern metrics for the assessment of the quality of care.

Authors:  P J E Holt; J D Poloniecki; D Hofman; R J Hinchliffe; I M Loftus; M M Thompson
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 7.069

4.  The risk of an unplanned return to the operating room in Australian hospitals.

Authors:  M Z Ansari; B T Collopy
Journal:  Aust N Z J Surg       Date:  1996-01

5.  Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Arden M Morris; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Barbara Matthews; Jason A Dominitz; William E Barlow; Sharon A Dobie; Kevin G Billingsley
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative outcomes in high-risk patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Francesco Feroci; Maddalena Baraghini; Elisa Lenzi; Alessia Garzi; Andrea Vannucchi; Stefano Cantafio; Marco Scatizzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The incidence of unplanned returns to the operating room after peripheral arterial bypass surgery and its value as indicator of quality of care.

Authors:  Arianne J Ploeg; Chris P E Lange; Jan-Willem Lardenoye; Paul J Breslau
Journal:  Vasc Endovascular Surg       Date:  2008 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 1.089

8.  Variability in reoperation rates at 182 hospitals: a potential target for quality improvement.

Authors:  Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark E Cohen; Karen Richards; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce L Hall
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  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

10.  Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.

Authors:  Elaine M Burns; Alex Bottle; Paul Aylin; Ara Darzi; R John Nicholls; Omar Faiz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-08-16
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base.

Authors:  Daniel P Nussbaum; Paul J Speicher; Asvin M Ganapathi; Brian R Englum; Jeffrey E Keenan; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.452

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.