Literature DB >> 27825690

Variation in Hospital Adoption Rates of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer and the Effect on Outcomes.

Zaid M Abdelsattar1, Mark S Allen1, K Robert Shen1, Stephen D Cassivi1, Francis C Nichols1, Dennis A Wigle1, Shanda H Blackmon2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examined the variation in the adoption of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lobectomy across United States hospitals from a population-based national database.
METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to identify patients undergoing lobectomy between 2010 and 2012 and used hierarchical regression to estimate case-mix-adjusted VATS lobectomy rates using patient and tumor characteristics. We stratified hospitals into quintiles by adjusted VATS lobectomy rates. To account for lack of equipment to perform minimally invasive thoracoscopic operations, we also obtained data on VATS wedge resections.
RESULTS: Of 55,972 cancer lobectomies performed at 905 hospitals, 17,072 (30.5%) were VATS. Crude hospital VATS use varied widely (mean was 25.5% of all lobectomies per hospital; interquartile range, 4.4% to 42.3%). Variation persisted after case-mix adjustment. For example, VATS rates at the highest and lowest quintiles were 76% vs 0.6%, respectively. Differences in patient and tumor characteristics across quintiles were negligible, and there was no indication that those hospitals lacked VATS equipment. The risk-adjusted same-hospital readmission (6.7% vs 7%; p > 0.2), 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 1.5%; p > 0.2), and 90-day mortality (2.9% vs 2.7%; p = 0.038) rates were similar between the highest and lowest quintiles. Length of stay was shorter at hospitals in the highest VATS quintile (6.6 vs 7.4 days; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of VATS lobectomy varies widely across United States hospitals. This variation cannot be explained by patient or tumor characteristics or by a shortage of VATS equipment. Efforts to reduce this variation will require the dissemination and implementation of novel training techniques and learning opportunities for surgeons.
Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27825690     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.08.091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  7 in total

1.  Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy: pulled in many directions.

Authors:  Zaid M Abdelsattar; Shanda H Blackmon
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  VATS lobectomy: does surgical heterogeneity prevent evidence on pain control?

Authors:  Luigi Santambrogio; Valeria Musso
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  The Very Experienced Time-honoUred Surgeons (VETUS) project.

Authors:  Luca Bertolaccini; Piergiorgio Solli; Roberto Crisci; Gaetano Rocco
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2018-01-04

4.  VATS lobectomy vs. open lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: an endless question-are we close to a definite answer?

Authors:  Francesco Guerrera; Anne Olland; Enrico Ruffini; Pierre-Emmanuel Falcoz
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Assessment of Textbook Outcome After Surgery for Stage I/II Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Sujay Kulshrestha; Wickii T Vigneswaran; Timothy M Pawlik; Marshall S Baker; Fred A Luchette; Wissam Raad; Zaid M Abdelsattar; Richard K Freeman; Tyler Grenda; James Lubawski
Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2021-08-16

6.  The 12 steps to a thoracoscopic anterior segment segmentectomy: Oncologically safe and sound.

Authors:  Hai Salfity; Stafford Scott Balderson; Thomas A D'Amico
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2022-02-18

7.  Variation in outcomes and use of laparoscopy in elective inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  T R Palser; S Swift; R N Williams; D J Bowrey; I J Beckingham
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2019-04-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.