Literature DB >> 24091552

The prevalence of laparoscopy and patient safety outcomes: an analysis of colorectal resections.

Carrie Y Peterson1, Kerrin Palazzi, J Kellogg Parsons, David C Chang, Sonia L Ramamoorthy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays than open surgery, perioperative patient safety analyses using process-focused, validated measures have yet to be performed.
METHODS: This study analyzed the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a 20 % weighted sample of inpatient hospital discharges, from 1998 to 2009. The study included patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal resections and excluded those younger than 18 years and those who underwent emergent or multiple colorectal operations. The primary outcome measure was surgery-specific patient safety indicators (PSIs). Uni- and multivariate regression methods were used to estimate associations of surgery type with PSIs.
RESULTS: A total of 2,936,641 patients were identified, and 177,547 (6 %) of these patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections. The laparoscopic patients were younger (p < 0.001) and more likely to be Caucasian (p = 0.005) and male (p < 0.001), to have lower Charlson scores (p < 0.001), and to undergo surgery in teaching hospitals (p < 0.001) located in urban areas (p < 0.001). The prevalence of laparoscopic surgery has increased rapidly in recent years, from 5 to 29 % of all colorectal procedures performed in 2007 and 2009, respectively. The prevalence of any PSI was lower in the laparoscopic group (4.2 vs. 8.3 %; p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that the likelihood of any PSI for laparoscopic colorectal resection was 57 % lower than for open resections (odds ratio, 0.43; 95 % confidence interval, 0.40-0.46; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was associated with a lower risk of adverse patient safety events, a difference that became more pronounced as the prevalence of laparoscopy increased. Future studies should focus on factors that promote the safe adoption of innovative surgical techniques and optimize surgical outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24091552     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3216-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  26 in total

1.  Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a better look into the latest trends.

Authors:  Celeste Y Kang; Wissam J Halabi; Ruihong Luo; Alessio Pigazzi; Ninh T Nguyen; Michael J Stamos
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2012-08

2.  Robotically assisted mitral valve replacement.

Authors:  Changqing Gao; Ming Yang; Cangsong Xiao; Gang Wang; Yang Wu; Jiali Wang; Jiachun Li
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-02-04       Impact factor: 5.209

3.  Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

Authors:  Steve Kwon; Richard Billingham; Ellen Farrokhi; Michael Florence; Daniel Herzig; Karen Horvath; Terry Rogers; Scott Steele; Rebecca Symons; Richard Thirlby; Mark Whiteford; David R Flum
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Video: laparoscopic Whipple procedure with a two-layered pancreatojejunostomy.

Authors:  Andrew A Gumbs; Brice Gayet; John P Hoffman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial.

Authors:  Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Inpatient safety trends in laparoscopic and open nephrectomy for renal tumours.

Authors:  Sean P Stroup; Kerrin L Palazzi; David C Chang; Nicholas T Ward; J Kellogg Parsons
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  National trends in the uptake of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer, 2000-2008.

Authors:  Bridie S Thompson; Michael D Coory; John W Lumley
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2011-05-02       Impact factor: 7.738

8.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009.

Authors:  Celeste Y Kang; Obaid O Chaudhry; Wissam J Halabi; Vinh Nguyen; Joseph C Carmichael; Michael J Stamos; Steven Mills
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer.

Authors:  In Ja Park; Gyu-Seog Choi; Kyoung Hoon Lim; Byung Mo Kang; Soo Han Jun
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 3.452

View more
  2 in total

1.  Inventory management of reusable surgical supplies.

Authors:  Adam Diamant; Joseph Milner; Fayez Quereshy; Bo Xu
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2017-03-08

2.  Abdominal Surgical Procedures in Adult Patients With Cystic Fibrosis: What Are the Risks?

Authors:  Melissa A Hite; Wolfgang B Gaertner; Bryan Garcia; Patrick A Flume; Pinckney J Maxwell; Virgilio V George; Thomas Curran
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 4.412

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.