Literature DB >> 8630838

Has laparoscopic cholecystectomy changed patterns of practice and patient outcome in Ontario?

M M Cohen1, W Young, M E Thériault, R Hernandez.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) on patterns of practice (number of cholecystectomy procedures, case-mix and length of hospital stay) and patient outcomes in Ontario.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based time trends using hospital discharge data.
SETTING: All acute care hospitals in Ontario where cholecystectomy was provided. PATIENTS: All 119,821 Ontario residents who underwent cholecystectomy between 1989-90 and 1993-94. After exclusions (initial bile duct exploration, cancer, incidental cholecystectomy, or missing codes for age, sex or residence) 108,442 patients remained. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of cholecystectomy procedures, proportion of patients with acute or chronic gallstone disease, length of hospital stay, and rates of death, readmission, and bile duct injury and other in-hospital complications after cholecystectomy by year.
RESULTS: The number of cholecystectomy procedures increased by 30.4% between 1989-90 and 1993-94. The number of patients with chronic gallstone disease increased by 33.6%, and the number who underwent elective surgery increased by 48.3%. The proportion of procedures performed as LC increased from 1.0% in 1990-91 to 85.6% in 1993-94. Patients who received LC tended to be younger female patients with chronic gallstone disease with no coexisting conditions undergoing elective operations. The mean length of stay, adjusted for case-mix differences, was significantly lower in 1993-94 than in 1989-90 (2.6 days v. 7.5 days) (p < 0.05); the values for LC and open cholecystectomy in 1993-94 were 1.8 days and 7.3 days respectively. The decrease in the crude death rate over the study period (0.3% to 0.2%) was not significant (relative odds 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 1.69). In 1993-94 the adjusted risk of readmission to hospital within 30 days was 1.38 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.58) as compared with 1989-90. Over the 5 years the rate of bile duct injuries tripled (0.3% in 1989-90 v. 0.9% in 1993-94). The adjusted risk of having at least one complication after cholecystectomy in 1993-94 was 1.90 (95% CI 1.75 to 2.07) as compared with 1989-90.
CONCLUSIONS: LC has had a substantial effect on the number of cholecystectomy procedures performed, the type of patient having the gallbladder removed and the length of hospital stay. Death rates are unchanged, but the odds of readmission and in-hospital complications are both increased. Future research should be directed toward determining the reasons for the overall increase in rates, developing methods to reduce bile duct injuries and identifying other relevant outcomes, such as patient satisfaction with the procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8630838      PMCID: PMC1487619     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  34 in total

1.  BILE-DUCT INJURIES. A NEW SUGGESTION FOR THEIR REPAIR.

Authors:  W MICHIE; A GUNN
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1964-02       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Development of clinical and economic prognoses from Medicare claims data.

Authors:  G Anderson; E P Steinberg; J Whittle; N R Powe; S Antebi; R Herbert
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-02-16       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  The effect of the Medicare prospective payment system.

Authors:  J R Lave
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 21.981

4.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A Cuschieri; G Berci; C K McSherry
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Use of medical record linkage to study readmission rates.

Authors:  J Henderson; M J Goldacre; M J Graveney; H M Simmons
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-09-16

6.  Software for health care analysts: a modular approach.

Authors:  L L Roos; A Wajda; S M Sharp; J P Nicol
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 7.  Cholecystectomy: the gold standard.

Authors:  C K McSherry
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Assessing hospital-associated deaths from discharge data. The role of length of stay and comorbidities.

Authors:  S F Jencks; D K Williams; T L Kay
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-10-21       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Assessing surgical risks in a population: patient histories before and after cholecystectomy.

Authors:  N P Roos; R Danzinger
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Centralization, certification, and monitoring. Readmissions and complications after surgery.

Authors:  L L Roos; S M Cageorge; N P Roos; R Danzinger
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  30 in total

1.  What's in a name? Reporting data from public institutions.

Authors:  John Hoey; Anne Marie Todkill; Ken Flegel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-01-22       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Minimally invasive surgical practice: a survey of general surgeons in Ontario.

Authors:  Patrick M Chiasson; David E Pace; Christopher M Schlachta; Joseph Mamazza; Eric C Poulin
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  Intraoperative cholangiography in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era: why are we still debating?

Authors:  F Ausania; L R Holmes; F Ausania; S Iype; P Ricci; S A White
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  How should single-access or natural orifice cholecystectomy be introduced?

Authors:  Saxon J Connor
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.647

5.  Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

Authors:  Steve Kwon; Richard Billingham; Ellen Farrokhi; Michael Florence; Daniel Herzig; Karen Horvath; Terry Rogers; Scott Steele; Rebecca Symons; Richard Thirlby; Mark Whiteford; David R Flum
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Using a standardized method for laparoscopic cholecystectomy to create a concept operation-specific checklist.

Authors:  Saxon J Connor; William Perry; Leslie Nathanson; Thomas B Hugh; Thomas J Hugh
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 3.647

7.  Long-term outcome and risk factors of failure after bile duct injury repair.

Authors:  Yaacov Goykhman; Issac Kory; Risa Small; Ada Kessler; Joseph M Klausner; Richard Nakache; Menahem Ben-Haim
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Administrative databases: fact or fiction?

Authors:  W J Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-02-24       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Bile duct injuries during open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the laparoscopic era: alarming trends.

Authors:  Jukka Karvonen; Paulina Salminen; Juha M Grönroos
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Ontario: does ICD-9 coding indicate true incidence?

Authors:  B Taylor
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-02-24       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.