Literature DB >> 26990210

Provider Experience and the Comparative Safety of Laparoscopic and Open Colectomy.

Kyle H Sheetz1, Edward C Norton2,3,4, John D Birkmeyer5, Justin B Dimick1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy across surgeons varying in experience with laparoscopy. DATA SOURCES: National Medicare data (2008-2010) for beneficiaries undergoing laparoscopic or open colectomy. STUDY
DESIGN: Using instrumental variable methods to address selection bias, we evaluated outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy. Our instrument was the regional use of laparoscopy in the year prior to a patient's operation. We then evaluated outcomes stratified by surgeons' annual volume of laparoscopic colectomy. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.75, 95 percent CI: 0.70-0.78) and fewer complications than open surgery (OR: 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.79-0.85). Increasing surgeon volume was associated with better outcomes for both procedures, but the relationship was stronger for laparoscopy. The comparative safety depended on surgeon volume. High-volume surgeons had 40 percent lower mortality (OR: 0.60, 95 percent CI: 0.55-0.65) and 30 percent fewer complications (OR: 0.70, 95 percent CI: 0.67-0.74) with laparoscopy. Conversely, low-volume surgeons had 7 percent higher mortality (OR: 1.07, 95 percent CI: 1.02-1.13) and 18 percent more complications (OR: 1.18, 95 percent CI: 1.12-1.24) with laparoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study demonstrates that the comparative safety of laparoscopic and open colectomy is influenced by surgeon volume. Laparoscopic colectomy is only safer for patients whose surgeons have sufficient experience. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative safety; colectomy; instrumental variables

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26990210      PMCID: PMC5264110          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12482

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  39 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Training, credentialing, and evaluation in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  T L Dent
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 2.741

3.  SAGES guideline for clinical application of laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Surg Obes Relat Dis       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 4.734

4.  The use of linear instrumental variables methods in health services research and health economics: a cautionary note.

Authors:  Joseph V Terza; W David Bradford; Clara E Dismuke
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.402

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.  Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?

Authors:  D Davis; M A O'Brien; N Freemantle; F M Wolf; P Mazmanian; A Taylor-Vaisey
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open left colonic resection.

Authors:  M Braga; M Frasson; W Zuliani; A Vignali; N Pecorelli; V Di Carlo
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 6.939

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.  Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial.

Authors:  James Fleshman; Daniel J Sargent; Erin Green; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; Heidi Nelson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  The impact of practicing in multiple hospitals on physician profiles.

Authors:  M E Miller; W P Welch; H G Welch
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  11 in total

1.  Morbidity and mortality after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Anne F Peery; Nicholas J Shaheen; Katherine S Cools; Todd H Baron; Mark Koruda; Joseph A Galanko; Ian S Grimm
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

Authors:  K Freischlag; M Adam; M Turner; J Watson; B Ezekian; P M Schroder; C Mantyh; J Migaly
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  How Patient Complexity and Surgical Approach Influence Episode-Based Payment Models for Colectomy.

Authors:  Kyle H Sheetz; Justin B Dimick; Scott E Regenbogen
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.585

4.  Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach.

Authors:  David Wei; Stephen Johnston; Laura Goldstein; Deborah Nagle
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Surgeon, not technique, defines outcomes after central venous port insertion.

Authors:  Audrey E Ertel; Zachary D McHenry; Vijay K Venkatesan; Dennis J Hanseman; Koffi Wima; Richard S Hoehn; Shimul A Shah; Daniel E Abbott
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 2.192

6.  Quality and Location of the Surgical Episode Mediate a Large Proportion of Socioeconomic-Based Survival Disparities in Patients with Resected Stage I-III Colon Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas S Swords; Brian K Bednarski; Craig A Messick; Matthew M Tillman; George J Chang; Y Nancy You
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Minimally invasive versus open surgery in the Medicare population: a comparison of post-operative and economic outcomes.

Authors:  Caleb J Fan; Hung-Lun Chien; Matthew J Weiss; Jin He; Christopher L Wolfgang; John L Cameron; Timothy M Pawlik; Martin A Makary
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  An Instrumental Variable Analysis Comparing Medicare Expenditures for Laparoscopic vs Open Colectomy.

Authors:  Kyle H Sheetz; Edward C Norton; Scott E Regenbogen; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  A haptic laparoscopic trainer based on affine velocity analysis: engineering and preliminary results.

Authors:  Benjamin De Witte; Charles Barnouin; Richard Moreau; Arnaud Lelevé; Xavier Martin; Christian Collet; Nady Hoyek
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Quadratus Lumborum Block Preemptive Analgesia on Postoperative Recovery of Patients with Open Radical Colon Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Ying Wang; Hongping Hu; Chang Feng; Dongyi Liu; Ning Ding
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 3.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.