4.4 Article

Does resident involvement effect surgical times and complication rates during laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis? An analysis of 16,849 cases from the ACS-NSQIP

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 203, Issue 3, Pages 347-351

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.015

Keywords

Laparoscopic appendectomy; NSQIP; Resident; Surgical times; Complications

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding whether resident involvement during surgery impacts patient outcomes. We compared surgical times and perioperative complications of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy with and without residents. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis during 2005 to 2008 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. RESULTS: During the study period, 16,849 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis (residents participated in 68% of procedures). There were no statistical and/or clinically meaningful differences between median age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, and morbidity probability between the 2 groups, suggesting that case mix was not a significant confounder. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy with residents compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy without residents had a higher incidence of serious and overall morbidity and longer surgical times. However, surgical times and complications were similar between residents in postgraduate years 1 to 5. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the postgraduate year level, resident involvement resulted in a clinically appreciable increase in surgical times and a statistically significant increase in certain complications. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available