3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Variation in the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for elderly patients with acute cholecystitis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 135, 期 4, 页码 457-462

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.135.4.457

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: There is regional variation in the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis in the New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) Medicare population. Design: Population-based, cross-sectional study. Setting: Hospital service areas (HSAs), small geographic areas reflecting local hospital markets, in New England. Patients: We identified from the claims database 21 570 Medicare patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 1995 and 1997. Patients with acute calculous cholecystitis but no bile duct stones (n = 6156) vi ere then identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic codes. To reduce variation by chance, we excluded patients residing in HSAs with fewer than 26 cases, leaving 5014 patients in 77 HSAs. Main Outcome Measures: For each HSA, we assessed the rate of cholecystectomies performed laparoscopically, mortality, and hospital length of stay. Results: Overall, 53.5%; of patients with acute cholecystitis underwent LC. There was wide regional variation in the rate of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, from 30.3% in the Salem, Mass, HSA to 75.5% in the Hyannis, Mass, HSA. Seventeen HSAs had rates below 40%, while 9 had rates above 10%. The average length of stay (7.6 days) was approximately 1 day shorter in HSAs with high rates of patients undergoing LC than in other HSAs. There was no correlation between regional use of laparoscopic surgery and 30-day mortality (3.1%; overall). Conclusions: The likelihood of elderly patients with acute cholecystitis receiving LC depends strongly on where they live. Efforts to reduce regional variation should focus on disseminating techniques for safe LC in this high-risk population.

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

3.9
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