4.7 Article

The rising tide of cholecystectomy for biliary dyskinesia

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 98-106

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12105

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Expert consensus defines biliary dyskinesia as a rare disorder of the gall-bladder characterised by pain and impaired gall-bladder function. Aim To determine trends in cholecystectomy rates for biliary dyskinesia in the United States. Methods As biliary dyskinesia does not have a distinct diagnosis code, the narrative diagnoses for patients were reviewed and abstracted for 200 patients treated for the most commonly used diagnosis codes for biliary dyskinesia (validation sample). Time trends in cholecystectomies and hospitalisations for biliary diseases were assessed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) based on codes for cholecystectomy and diagnosis codes for different biliary disorders. Results In the validation sample, biliary dyskinesia accounted for 81% of the patients with ICD-9 code 575.8 (gall-bladder disease not elsewhere specified). Between 1997 and 2010, admissions for acute cholecystitis and complications of gallstone disease decreased slightly, whereas admissions with the primary diagnosis code ICD-9 575.8 tripled. This rise was most pronounced in the paediatric population (700% increase), with biliary dyskinesia accounting for more than 10% of cholecystectomies. Compared with acute biliary diseases, significantly more of the elective hospitalisations were covered by private insurances. Conclusions Practice patterns differ from expert opinion, with biliary dyskinesia accounting for an increasing fraction of cholecystectomies. The rise in these elective interventions is associated with a shift to a younger, low risk and predominantly privately insured population. Considering the benign nature of biliary dyskinesia, it is time to reassess the need for operative interventions, which have never been compared with active conservative therapy.

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

4.7
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