4.7 Article

Laparoscopic Colon Resection Trends in Utilization and Rate of Conversion to Open Procedure A National Database Review of Academic Medical Centers

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 256, 期 3, 页码 462-468

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182657ec5

关键词

laparoscopy; trends; resection; colon; conversion; outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study aims to examine trends of utilization and rates of conversion to open procedure for patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resections (LCR). Methods: This study is a national database review of academic medical centers and a retrospective analysis utilizing the University HealthSystem Consortium administrative database-an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate hospitals. Results: A total of 85,712 patients underwent colon resections between October 2008 and December 2011. LCR was attempted in 36,228 patients (42.2%), with 5751 patients (15.8%) requiring conversion to an open procedure. There was a trend toward increasing utilization of LCR from 37.5% in 2008 to 44.1% in 2011. Attempted laparoscopic transverse colectomy had the highest rate of conversion (20.8%), followed by left (20.7%), right (15.6%), and sigmoid (14.3%) colon resections. The rate of utilization was highest in the Mid-Atlantic region (50.5%) and in medium- to large-sized hospitals (47.0%-49.0%). Multivariate logistic regression has shown that increasing age [odds ratio (OR) = 4.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.6-6.4], male sex (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3), open as compared with laparoscopic approach (OR = 2.6, 95%, CI = 2.3-3.1), and greater severity of illness category (OR = 27.1, 95% CI = 23.0-31.9) were all associated with increased mortality and morbidity and prolonged length of hospital stay. Conclusions: There is a trend of increasing utilization of LCR, with acceptable conversion rates, across hospitals in the United States over the recent years. When feasible, attempted LCR had better outcomes than open colectomy in the immediate perioperative period.

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