4.1 Article

Far from Standardized: Using Surgical Videos to Identify Variation in Technique for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0184

关键词

bariatric surgery; sleeve gastrectomy; technique; video assessment

类别

资金

  1. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan/Blue Care Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Video assessment is an emerging tool for understanding variation in surgical technique. Methods: Representative videos of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) were voluntarily submitted by 20 surgeons who participated in a statewide quality improvement collaborative. The amount of time required to complete the salient steps of the operation was measured and variations in the tasks performed during each step were captured. Results: Twenty-two videos of LSG were submitted and 11 videos included concurrent hiatal hernia repair. Data obtained from video analysis identified variation in time to complete each step of the procedure: pre-stapling dissection of stomach (5-25 minutes), gastric stapling (8-20 minutes), and management of the staple line (1-25 minutes). Time required to perform a hiatal hernia repair also varied (1-26 minutes), as did the type of repair: 55% were performed with a posterior cruropexy, 27% were performed with an anterior cruropexy, and 18% were performed with both. Ten different permutations of staple heights and buttressing material were used during division of the stomach with a gastric stapler. Management of the staple line included use of buttressing (64%), fibrin sealant (36%), oversewing (9%), surgical clips (18%), imbrication of the staple line (36%), and omentoplasty (55%). Conclusions: LSG technique is not uniform. Video analysis identified variation in (1) time to complete each step of the procedure, (2) hiatal hernia repair technique, (3) stapling technique, and (4) post-transection staple line management. Future efforts linking video analysis with clinical outcomes can provide objective evidence to support best practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据