Literature DB >> 29943136

Independent Predictors of Increased Operative Time and Hospital Length of Stay Are Consistent Across Different Surgical Approaches to Pancreatoduodenectomy.

Dimitrios Xourafas1,2, Timothy M Pawlik2, Jordan M Cloyd3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive approaches are increasingly being utilized for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), factors associated with prolonged operative time (OpTime) and hospital length of stay (LOS) remain poorly defined, and it is unclear whether these factors are consistent across surgical approaches.
METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP targeted pancreatectomy database from 2014 to 2016 was used to identify all patients who underwent open (OPD), laparoscopic (LPD), or robotic (RPD) pancreatoduodenectomy. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of OpTime and LOS, as well as quantify the changes observed relative to each surgical approach.
RESULTS: Among 10,970 patients, PD procedure types varied: 9963 (92%) open, 418 (4%) laparoscopic, and 409 (4%) robotic. LOS was longer for the open and laparoscopic approaches (11 vs. 11 vs. 10 days, P = 0.0068), whereas OpTime was shortest for OPD (366 vs. 426 vs. 435 min, P < 0.0001). Independent predictors of a prolonged OpTime were ASA class ≥ 3 (P = 0.0002), preoperative XRT (P < 0.0001), pancreatic duct < 3 mm (P = 0.0001), T stage ≥ 3 (P = 0.0108), and vascular resection (P < 0.0001) for OPD; T stage ≥ 3 (P = 0.0510) and vascular resection (P = 0.0062) for LPD; and malignancy (P = 0.0460) and conversion to laparotomy (P = 0.0001) for RPD. Independent predictors of increased LOS were age ≥ 65 years (P = 0.0002), ASA class ≥ 3 (P = 0.0012), hypoalbuminemia (P < 0.0001), and preoperative blood transfusion (P < 0.0001) for OPD as well as an OpTime > 370 min (all p < 0.05) and specific postoperative complications (all p < 0.05) for all surgical approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative risk factors for prolonged OpTime and hospital LOS are relatively consistent across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to PD. Particular attention to these factors may help identify opportunities to improve perioperative quality, enhance patient satisfaction, and ensure an efficient allocation of hospital resources.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACS NSQIP database; Hospital length of stay; Laparoscopic; Open; Operative time; Predictors; Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29943136     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3834-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  30 in total

1.  Frequency with which surgeons undertake pancreaticoduodenectomy determines length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality.

Authors:  A S Rosemurgy; M Bloomston; F M Serafini; B Coon; M M Murr; L C Carey
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative.

Authors:  Brian J Daley; William Cecil; P Chris Clarke; Joseph B Cofer; Oscar D Guillamondegui
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Adoption of anesthesia information management systems by academic departments in the United States.

Authors:  Christoph B Egger Halbeis; Richard H Epstein; Alex Macario; Ronald G Pearl; Zvi Grunwald
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Modeling procedure and surgical times for current procedural terminology-anesthesia-surgeon combinations and evaluation in terms of case-duration prediction and operating room efficiency: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Pieter S Stepaniak; Christiaan Heij; Guido H H Mannaerts; Marcel de Quelerij; Guus de Vries
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Neoadjuvant radiation therapy and its impact on complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP).

Authors:  Sung W Cho; Ching-Wei David Tzeng; W Cory Johnston; Maria A Cassera; Philippa H Newell; Chet W Hammill; Ronald F Wolf; Thomas A Aloia; Paul D Hansen
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 3.647

6.  Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Paul J Speicher; Daniel P Nussbaum; Rebekah R White; Sabino Zani; Paul J Mosca; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler; Alexander Perez
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 7.  Enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Daniel J Kagedan; Mahrosh Ahmed; Katharine S Devitt; Alice C Wei
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Impact of Operative Time on Outcomes after Pancreatic Resection: A Risk-Adjusted Analysis Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database.

Authors:  Laura Maggino; Jason B Liu; Brett L Ecker; Henry A Pitt; Charles M Vollmer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Decreasing length of stay after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  A D Brooks; S G Marcus; C Gradek; E Newman; P Shamamian; T H Gouge; H L Pachter; K Eng
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2000-07

10.  Whipple-specific complications result in prolonged length of stay not accounted for in ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.

Authors:  Brian M Cusworth; Bradley A Krasnick; Timothy M Nywening; Cheryl A Woolsey; Ryan C Fields; Maria M Doyle; Jingxia Liu; William G Hawkins
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.647

View more
  6 in total

1.  Surgical Outcomes After Pancreatic Resection of Screening-Detected Lesions in Individuals at High Risk for Developing Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Marcia Irene Canto; Tossapol Kerdsirichairat; Charles J Yeo; Ralph H Hruban; Eun Ji Shin; Jose Alejandro Almario; Amanda Blackford; Madeline Ford; Alison P Klein; Ammar A Javed; Anne Marie Lennon; Atif Zaheer; Ihab R Kamel; Elliot K Fishman; Richard Burkhart; Jin He; Martin Makary; Matthew J Weiss; Richard D Schulick; Michael G Goggins; Christopher L Wolfgang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Preoperative Nomogram Predicts Non-home Discharge in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Katelyn F Flick; C Max Schmidt; Cameron L Colgate; Michele T Yip-Schneider; Chris M Sublette; Thomas K Maatman; Mazhar Soufi; Eugene P Ceppa; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy with the da Vinci Xi: can the costs of advanced technology be offset by clinical advantages? A case-matched cost analysis versus open approach.

Authors:  Gregorio Di Franco; Valentina Lorenzoni; Matteo Palmeri; Niccolò Furbetta; Simone Guadagni; Desirée Gianardi; Matteo Bianchini; Luca Emanuele Pollina; Franca Melfi; Domenica Mamone; Carlo Milli; Giulio Di Candio; Giuseppe Turchetti; Luca Morelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 3.453

4.  Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Alberto Aiolfi; Francesca Lombardo; Gianluca Bonitta; Piergiorgio Danelli; Davide Bona
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2020-12-14

5.  Clinical Factors Associated with Longer Hospital Stay Following Ovarian Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Christopher G Smith; Daniel L Davenport; Justin Gorski; Anthony McDowell; Brian T Burgess; Tricia I Fredericks; Lauren A Baldwin; Rachel W Miller; Christopher P DeSimone; Charles S Dietrich; Holly H Gallion; Edward J Pavlik; John R van Nagell; Frederick R Ueland
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2019-07-03

6.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lanwei Ouyang; Jia Zhang; Qingbo Feng; Zhiguang Zhang; Hexing Ma; Guodong Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 6.244

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.