Literature DB >> 24705780

Assessing surgical quality: comparison of general and procedure-specific morbidity estimation models for the risk adjustment of pancreaticoduodenectomy outcomes.

C Ansorge1, P Lindström, L Strömmer, J Blomberg, L Lundell, A Andrén-Sandberg, M Del Chiaro, R Segersvärd.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The use of outcomes to evaluate surgical quality implies the need for detailed risk adjustment. The physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) is a generally applicable risk adjustment model suitable for pancreatic surgery. A pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)-specific intraoperative pancreatic risk assessment (IPRA) estimates the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and associated morbidity based on factors that are not incorporated into POSSUM.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the risk estimations of POSSUM and IPRA in patients undergoing PD.
METHODS: An observational single-center cohort study was conducted including 195 patients undergoing PD in 2008-2010. POSSUM and IPRA data were recorded prospectively. Incidence and severity of postoperative morbidity was recorded according to established definitions. The cohort was grouped by POSSUM and IPRA risk groups. The estimated and observed outcomes and morbidity profiles of POSSUM and IPRA were scrutinized.
RESULTS: POSSUM-estimated risk (62 %) corresponded with observed total morbidity (65 %). Severe morbidity was 17 % and in-hospital-mortality 3.1 %. Individual and grouped POSSUM risk estimates did not reveal associations with incidence (p = 0.637) or severity (p = 0.321) of total morbidity or POPF. The IPRA model identified patients with high POPF risk (p < 0.001), but was even associated with incidence (p < 0.001) and severity (p < 0.001) of total morbidity.
CONCLUSION: The risk factors defined by a PD-specific model were significantly stronger predictive indicators for the incidence and severity of postoperative morbidity than the factors incorporated in POSSUM. If available, reliable procedure-specific risk factors should be utilized in the risk adjustment of surgical outcomes. For pancreatic surgery, generally applicable tools such as POSSUM still have to prove their relevance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24705780     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2554-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  77 in total

1.  Are critical items "critical" for the MMPI-A.

Authors:  R P Archer; J M Jacobson
Journal:  J Pers Assess       Date:  1993-12

2.  The relationship between choice of outcome measure and hospital rank in general surgical procedures: implications for quality assessment.

Authors:  J H Silber; P R Rosenbaum; S V Williams; R N Ross; J S Schwartz
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.038

3.  Risk factors, predictors and prevention of pancreatic fistula formation after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Takehiro Okabayashi; Michiya Kobayashi; Isao Nishimori; Takeki Sugimoto; Saburo Onishi; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2007-11-30

Review 4.  A systematic review of the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity and its Portsmouth modification as predictors of post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Haolu Wang; Tao Chen; Hui Wang; Yanyan Song; Xinxing Li; Jian Wang
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Cancer of the pancreas: palliative operation, Whipple procedure, or total pancreatectomy.

Authors:  W P Longmire
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Improving outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer through centralization.

Authors:  V E P P Lemmens; K Bosscha; G van der Schelling; S Brenninkmeijer; J W W Coebergh; I H J T de Hingh
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Evaluation of surgical outcome scores according to ISGPS definitions in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

Authors:  B C Knight; A Kausar; M Manu; B A Ammori; D J Sherlock; D A O'Reilly
Journal:  Dig Surg       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 2.588

8.  Risk factors and outcomes in postpancreaticoduodenectomy pancreaticocutaneous fistula.

Authors:  John W Lin; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Taylor S Riall; Keith D Lillemoe
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  A comparison of POSSUM and GPS models in the prediction of post-operative outcome in patients undergoing oesophago-gastric cancer resection.

Authors:  Sumanta Dutta; Nesrin M Al-Mrabt; Grant M Fullarton; Paul G Horgan; Donald C McMillan
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Variation in postoperative complication rates after high-risk surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Peter J Pronovost; John A Cowan; Pamela A Lipsett; James C Stanley; Gilbert R Upchurch
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.982

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Pancreatic cancer surgery and nutrition management: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Cheguevara Afaneh; Deborah Gerszberg; Eoin Slattery; David S Seres; John A Chabot; Michael D Kluger
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 7.293

2.  Nutritional risk factors are associated with postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Jong Hun Kim; Huisong Lee; Hyun Hwa Choi; Seog Ki Min; Hyeon Kook Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 1.859

3.  Standardization of perioperative care facilitates safe discharge by postoperative day five after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Sara K Daniel; Lucas W Thornblade; Gary N Mann; James O Park; Venu G Pillarisetty
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.