Colette S Inaba1, Christina Y Koh1, Sarath Sujatha-Bhaskar1, Yoon Lee1, Marija Pejcinovska2, Ninh T Nguyen3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California. 2. Center for Statistical Consulting, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California. Electronic address: ninhn@uci.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown conflicting effects of resident involvement on outcomes after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Resident involvement may be a proxy for a teaching environment in which multiple factors affect patient outcomes. However, no study has examined outcomes of laparoscopic bariatric surgery based on hospital teaching status. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between teaching hospitals (THs) and nonteaching hospitals (NTHs). SETTING: Retrospective review of a national database in the United States. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2011-2013) was reviewed for obese patients who underwent LRYGB or LSG. Patient demographic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed according to hospital teaching status. Primary outcome measures included risk-adjusted inpatient mortality and serious morbidity. RESULTS: We analyzed 32,449 LRYGBs and 26,075 LSGs. There were 35,160 (60.1%) cases performed at THs and 23,364 (39.9%) cases performed at NTHs. At THs, the distribution of LRYGB versus LSG cases was 20,461 (58.2%) versus 14,699 (41.8%), respectively; at NTHs, the distribution was 11,988 (51.3%) versus 11,376 (48.7%), respectively. For LRYGB, there were no significant differences between THs versus NTHs in mortality (AOR 1.14; P = 0.99), but there was an increase in odds of serious morbidity at THs (AOR 1.36; P<0.001). For LSG, there were no significant differences between THs versus NTHs for mortality (AOR 1.15; P = 0.99) or serious morbidity (AOR 1.03; P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between THs and increased serious morbidity for LRYGB, but hospital teaching status has no effect on morbidity or mortality after LSG. Further research is warranted to elucidate the reasons for these associations.
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown conflicting effects of resident involvement on outcomes after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Resident involvement may be a proxy for a teaching environment in which multiple factors affect patient outcomes. However, no study has examined outcomes of laparoscopic bariatric surgery based on hospital teaching status. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between teaching hospitals (THs) and nonteaching hospitals (NTHs). SETTING: Retrospective review of a national database in the United States. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2011-2013) was reviewed for obesepatients who underwent LRYGB or LSG. Patient demographic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed according to hospital teaching status. Primary outcome measures included risk-adjusted inpatient mortality and serious morbidity. RESULTS: We analyzed 32,449 LRYGBs and 26,075 LSGs. There were 35,160 (60.1%) cases performed at THs and 23,364 (39.9%) cases performed at NTHs. At THs, the distribution of LRYGB versus LSG cases was 20,461 (58.2%) versus 14,699 (41.8%), respectively; at NTHs, the distribution was 11,988 (51.3%) versus 11,376 (48.7%), respectively. For LRYGB, there were no significant differences between THs versus NTHs in mortality (AOR 1.14; P = 0.99), but there was an increase in odds of serious morbidity at THs (AOR 1.36; P<0.001). For LSG, there were no significant differences between THs versus NTHs for mortality (AOR 1.15; P = 0.99) or serious morbidity (AOR 1.03; P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between THs and increased serious morbidity for LRYGB, but hospital teaching status has no effect on morbidity or mortality after LSG. Further research is warranted to elucidate the reasons for these associations.
Authors: David M Shahian; Paul Nordberg; Gregg S Meyer; Bonnie B Blanchfield; Elizabeth A Mort; David F Torchiana; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Louise Nasmith; Heather Rubenstein; Howard Goldstein; Donald Sproule; Elaine D Franco; Pierre Tellier Journal: Acad Med Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Piotr Major; Michał Wysocki; Jadwiga Dworak; Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Małczak; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Warren H Tseng; Leah Jin; Robert J Canter; Steve R Martinez; Vijay P Khatri; Jeffrey Gauvin; Richard J Bold; David Wisner; Sandra Taylor; Steven L Chen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: S Scott Davis; Farah A Husain; Edward Lin; Kalyana C Nandipati; Sebastian Perez; John F Sweeney Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Robert W Krell; Nancy J O Birkmeyer; Bradley N Reames; Arthur M Carlin; John D Birkmeyer; Jonathan F Finks Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Alfredo M Carbonell; Amy E Lincourt; Brent D Matthews; Kent W Kercher; Ronald F Sing; B Todd Heniford Journal: Am Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Hind A Beydoun; May A Beydoun; Sharmin Hossain; Laurel Stadtmauer; Shaker M Eid; Alan B Zonderman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.681