4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Analysis of the SAGES outcomes initiative cholecystectomy registry

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0378-0

关键词

cholecystectomy registry; common bile duct injury; gallbladder registry; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; outcomes initiative; SAGES

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In 1999, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) introduced the SAGES Outcomes Initiative as a method for its members to use for tracking their own outcomes. This report provides a descriptive analysis of the cholecystectomy database. Methods: The SAGES Outcome Initiative database was accessed for all gallbladder cases from September 1999 to February 2005. The data from the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative entries were summarized. These data are purely descriptive, and no statistical analysis was performed. Results: The gallbladder registry contained 3,285 cases, with 2,005 follow-up cases. Most patients were employed women with some comorbidities who had elective surgery under general anesthesia. Most of the operating surgeons were attending surgeons and surgical assistants. Most of the patients had biliary colic, and symptoms were improved for more than 95% of the patients. More than 90% of the cases were managed laparoscopically, with a conversion rate of 3%. Biliary imaging was used in the vast majority of cases, with most shown to be normal. Intraoperative gallbladder perforation was common, with bile duct injury occurring in 0.25% of cases. The most frequently cited postoperative event was wound infection, with most complications classified as class 1. More than 95% of the patients were able to return to work. Conclusions: The SAGES Outcomes Initiative database demonstrates that most participating SAGES members perform laparoscopic cholecystectomies themselves using intraoperative cholangiograms. Adverse outcomes are few, with most patients able to return to normal activity. Importantly, there were relatively few missing data points, implying that when surgeons enter data, the information is relatively complete.

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

4.6
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