4.0 Article

The Relation between Obesity and Hospital Length of Stay after Elective Lateral Skull Base Surgery: An Analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Journal

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000435786

Keywords

Obesity; Length of stay; Lateral skull base surgery; National Surgical Quality Improvement Program; Acoustic neuroma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Length of stay is a marker of quality and efficiency of health care delivery. The objective of this study was to identify preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables that impact length of stay after lateral skull base surgery. Methods/Procedures: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) databases from 2009-2012 were analyzed, and patients undergoing elective lateral skull base surgery for benign lesions of cranial nerves were identified. The primary outcome measure of interest was length of hospital stay. Protracted length of stay was defined as >= 75th percentile of length of stay for all patients. The impact of demographic factors, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications on length of stay was assessed. Results: In total, 252 patients were included. Almost half of the patients (41.2%) were classified as obese (body mass index 30). Patients who were obese had significantly longer lengths of stay (5.6 +/- 3.9 days) when compared to patients who were not obese (4.6 +/- 3.4 days, p = 0.006). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that operative time, reoperation within 30 days of initial surgery, and obesity were independent predictors for protracted length of stay. Conclusion: National multi-institutional data from the ACS-NSQIP suggest that operative time, reoperation, and obesity are predictors of longer hospital stays after lateral skull base approaches for benign cranial nerve neoplasms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available