Literature DB >> 28594583

Impact of Surgeon Specialty on Perioperative Outcomes of Surgery for Benign Esophageal Diseases: A NSQIP Analysis.

Zeyad Khoshhal1,2,3, Joseph Canner3, Eric Schneider3, Miloslawa Stem4, Elliott Haut3,4, Francisco Schlottmann5, Arianna Barbetta5, Benedetto Mungo4, Anne Lidor6, Daniela Molena5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgery for benign esophageal disease is mostly performed either by general surgeons (GS) or cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS) in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surgeon specialty on perioperative outcomes of surgery for benign esophageal diseases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective analysis using the ACS-NSQIP during the period of 2006-2013. Patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair, gastric fundoplication, or Heller esophagomyotomy were divided into two groups according to the specialty of the surgeon (GS or CTS). Outcomes compared between the two groups using multivariable logistic regression included 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, discharge destination, hospital length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates.
RESULTS: Most of the surgeries were performed by general surgeons (PEH: 97.1%; fundoplication: 97.6%; Heller: 91.6%). Patients had lower comorbidities, better physical condition, and underwent a laparoscopic approach more frequently in the GS group. Regression analysis showed that GS group had a lower mortality rate (operating room, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.86; P = .017), shorter LOS, and more home discharge for patients undergoing PEH repair. Mortality, morbidity, readmission, LOS, and home discharge were comparable between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy.
CONCLUSION: GS perform most of esophageal surgeries for benign diseases. GS group has better outcomes in PEH repair compared with CTS, whereas there is no difference in the overall outcomes between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy. These results show that specialization is not always the answer to better outcomes. Difference in outcomes, however, might be related to disease severity, approach needed, or case volume.

Entities:  

Keywords:  benign disease; esophageal surgery; outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28594583      PMCID: PMC5749579          DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A        ISSN: 1092-6429            Impact factor:   1.878


  21 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.  National trends in outcomes for esophageal resection.

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Reid M Wainess; Gilbert R Upchurch; Mark D Iannettoni; Mark B Orringer
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Does specialty board certification influence clinical outcomes?

Authors:  Eric N Grosch
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Outcomes of esophagectomy according to surgeon's training: general vs. thoracic.

Authors:  Brian R Smith; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Kevin M Reavis; Ninh T Nguyen
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Pediatric surgeon vs general surgeon: does subspecialty training affect the outcome of appendicitis?

Authors:  Paulo Sérgio Lucas da Silva; Vânia Euzébio de Aguiar; Jaques Waisberg
Journal:  Pediatr Int       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 1.524

6.  Hospitalization for esophageal achalasia in the United States.

Authors:  Daniela Molena; Benedetto Mungo; Miloslawa Stem; Anne O Lidor
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-09-25

7.  Specialty training and mortality after esophageal cancer resection.

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Philip P Goodney; Mark B Orringer; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Influence of Specialty Training and Trainee Involvement on Perioperative Outcomes of Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Zeyad Khoushhal; Joseph Canner; Eric Schneider; Miloslawa Stem; Elliott Haut; Benedetto Mungo; Anne Lidor; Daniela Molena
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Outcomes of operations for benign foregut disease in elderly patients: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database analysis.

Authors:  Daniela Molena; Benedetto Mungo; Miloslawa Stem; Richard L Feinberg; Anne O Lidor
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 10.  Specialty board certification and clinical outcomes: the missing link.

Authors:  Lisa K Sharp; Philip G Bashook; Martin S Lipsky; Sheldon D Horowitz; Stephen H Miller
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.893

View more
  3 in total

1.  Providing complex GI surgical care with minimally invasive approaches: a survey of the practice patterns of Fellowship Council alumni.

Authors:  Joshua J Weis; Adnan A Alseidi; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Michael A Schweitzer; Yumi Hori; Vanessa Cheung; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Outcomes of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair based on surgical specialty: thoracic versus general surgeons.

Authors:  Sahil Gambhir; Shaun Daly; Shelley Maithel; Brian M Sheehan; James Nguyen; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Ninh T Nguyen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Esophagectomies for Malignancy Among General and Thoracic Surgeons: A Propensity Score Matched National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis Stratified by Surgical Approach.

Authors:  Shravan Leonard-Murali; Tommy Ivanics; Hassan Nasser; Amy Tang; Zane Hammoud
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 0.688

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.