Literature DB >> 26646127

Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Endometrial Cancer Care: A Quality and Cost Disparity.

Amanda N Fader1, R Matsuno Weise, Abdulrahman K Sinno, Edward J Tanner, Bijan J Borah, James P Moriarty, Robert E Bristow, Martin A Makary, Peter J Pronovost, Susan Hutfless, Sean C Dowdy.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe case mix-adjusted hospital level utilization of minimally invasive surgery for hysterectomy in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the proportion of patients who had a minimally invasive compared with open hysterectomy for nonmetastatic endometrial cancer using the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, 2007-2011. Hospitals were stratified by endometrial cancer case volumes (low=less than 10; medium=11-30; high=greater than 30 cases). Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to evaluate hospital and patient variables associated with minimally invasive utilization, complications, and costs.
RESULTS: Overall, 32,560 patients were identified; 33.6% underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy with an increase of 22.0-50.8% from 2007 to 2011. Low-volume cancer centers demonstrated the lowest minimally invasive utilization rate (23.6%; P<.001). After multivariable adjustment, minimally invasive surgery was less likely to be performed in patients with Medicaid compared with private insurance (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.72), black and Hispanic compared with white patients (adjusted OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.46 for black and 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82 for white patients), and more likely to be performed in high- compared with low-volume hospitals (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 2.15-8.27). Open hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk of surgical site infection (adjusted OR 6.21, 95% CI 5.11-7.54) and venous thromboembolism (adjusted OR 3.65, 95% CI 3.12-4.27). Surgical cases with complications had higher mean hospitalization costs for all hysterectomy procedure types (P<.001).
CONCLUSION: Hospital utilization of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of endometrial cancer varies considerably in the United States, representing a disparity in the quality and cost of surgical care delivered nationwide.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26646127     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001180

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  15 in total

Review 1.  New Developments in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology Surgery.

Authors:  Katherine Ikard Stewart; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.190

2.  Impact of Super Monkey Ball and Underground video games on basic and advanced laparoscopic skill training.

Authors:  James C Rosser; Xinwei Liu; Charles Jacobs; Katherine Mia Choi; Maarten B Jalink; Henk O Ten Cate Hoedemaker
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Impact of body mass index and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in women with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia.

Authors:  Rudy S Suidan; Weiguo He; Charlotte C Sun; Hui Zhao; Nicole D Fleming; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman; Shannon N Westin; Karen H Lu; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Surgical Care for Women with Endometrial Cancer in Florida.

Authors:  Osayande Osagiede; Christopher C DeStephano; Jordan J Cochuyt; Dorin T Colibaseanu; Matthew A Robertson; Aaron C Spaulding
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2019-05-29

5.  Patient, surgeon, and hospital disparities associated with benign hysterectomy approach and perioperative complications.

Authors:  Ambar Mehta; Tim Xu; Susan Hutfless; Martin A Makary; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Edward J Tanner; Rebecca L Stone; Karen Wang; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-12-26       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 6.  A perverse quality incentive in surgery: implications of reimbursing surgeons less for doing laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Amanda N Fader; Tim Xu; Brian J Dunkin; Martin A Makary
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The limited utility of currently available venous thromboembolism risk assessment tools in gynecological oncology patients.

Authors:  Emma L Barber; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Minimally invasive hysterectomy surgery rates for endometrial cancer performed at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Centers.

Authors:  Jennifer Bergstrom; Alessia Aloisi; Shannon Armbruster; Ting-Tai Yen; Jvan Casarin; Mario M Leitao; Edward J Tanner; Rayna Matsuno; Karime Kalil Machado; Sean C Dowdy; Pamela T Soliman; Stephanie L Wethington; Rebecca L Stone; Kimberly L Levinson; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Updates and Controversies of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Surgery.

Authors:  Aaron Varghese; Marisol Doglioli; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.190

10.  Uterus didelphys complicated with endometrial carcinoma: A case report of uterus didelphys with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Liang Chen; Fang Zhang; Yue-Bing Ma; Jin-Long Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.