Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 5/2018

03.11.2017

Academic status does not affect outcome following complex hepato-pancreato-biliary procedures

verfasst von: Maria S. Altieri, Jie Yang, Donald Groves, Donglei Yin, Kristen Cagino, Mark Talamini, Aurora Pryor

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 5/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

There is a growing debate regarding outcomes following complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures. The purpose of our study is to examine if facility type has any impact on complications, readmission rates, emergency department (ED) visit rates, and length of stay (LOS) for patients undergoing HPB surgery.

Methods

The SPARCS administrative database was used to identify patients undergoing complex HPB procedures between 2012 and 2014 in New York. Univariate generalized linear mixed models were fit to estimate the marginal association between outcomes such as overall/severe complication rates, 30-day and 1-year readmission rates, 30-day and 1-year ED-visit rates, and potential risk factors. Univariate linear mixed models were used to estimate the marginal association between possible risk factors and LOS. Facility type, as well as any variables found to be significant in our univariate analysis (p = 0.05), was further included in the multivariable regression models.

Results

There were 4122 complex HPB procedures performed. Academic facilities were more likely to have a higher hospital volume (p < 0001). Surgery at academic facilities were less likely to have coexisting comorbidities; however, they were more likely to have metastatic cancer and/or liver disease (p = 0.0114, < 0. 0001, and = 0.0299, respectively). Postoperatively, patients at non-academic facilities experienced higher overall complication rates, and higher severe complication rates, when compared to those at academic facilities (p < 0.0001 and = 0.0018, respectively). Further analysis via adjustment for possible confounding factors, however, revealed no significant difference in the risk of severe complications between the two facility types. Such adjustment also demonstrated higher 30-day readmission risk in patients who underwent their surgery at an academic facility.

Conclusion

No significant difference was found when comparing the outcomes of academic and non-academic facilities, after adjusting for age, gender, race, region, insurance, and hospital volume. Patients from academic facilities were more likely to be readmitted within the first 30-days after surgery.
Literatur
2.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137CrossRefPubMed Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Urbach DR, Baxter NN (2004) Does it matter what a hospital is “high volume” for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. Qual Saf Health Care 13:379–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Urbach DR, Baxter NN (2004) Does it matter what a hospital is “high volume” for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. Qual Saf Health Care 13:379–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat van Heek NT, Kuhlmann KF, Scholten RJ et al (2005) Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 242:781–788. [discussion 788–790]CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van Heek NT, Kuhlmann KF, Scholten RJ et al (2005) Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 242:781–788. [discussion 788–790]CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M et al (1995) Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 222:638–645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M et al (1995) Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 222:638–645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ho V, Heslin MJ (2003) Effect of hospital volume and experience on in-hospital mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 237:509–514PubMedPubMedCentral Ho V, Heslin MJ (2003) Effect of hospital volume and experience on in-hospital mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 237:509–514PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Chamberlain RS, Tichauer M, Klaassen Z et al (2011) Complex pancreatic surgery: safety and feasibility in the community setting. J Gastrointest Surg 15:184–190CrossRefPubMed Chamberlain RS, Tichauer M, Klaassen Z et al (2011) Complex pancreatic surgery: safety and feasibility in the community setting. J Gastrointest Surg 15:184–190CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kastenberg ZJ, Morton JM, Visser BC et al (2013) Hospital readmission after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: an emerging quality metric? HPB 15:142–148CrossRefPubMed Kastenberg ZJ, Morton JM, Visser BC et al (2013) Hospital readmission after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: an emerging quality metric? HPB 15:142–148CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Bakens MJ, van Gestel YR, Bongers M et al (2015) Hospital of diagnosis and likelihood of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 102:1670–1675CrossRefPubMed Bakens MJ, van Gestel YR, Bongers M et al (2015) Hospital of diagnosis and likelihood of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 102:1670–1675CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Meguid RA, Ahuja N, Chang DC (2008) What constitutes a “high-volume” hospital for pancreatic resection? J Am Coll Surg 206:622 e621-629CrossRef Meguid RA, Ahuja N, Chang DC (2008) What constitutes a “high-volume” hospital for pancreatic resection? J Am Coll Surg 206:622 e621-629CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Riall TS, Nealon WH, Goodwin JS et al (2008) Outcomes following pancreatic resection: variability among high-volume providers. Surgery 144:133–140CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Riall TS, Nealon WH, Goodwin JS et al (2008) Outcomes following pancreatic resection: variability among high-volume providers. Surgery 144:133–140CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosemurgy AS, Bloomston M, Serafini FM et al (2001) Frequency with which surgeons undertake pancreaticoduodenectomy determines length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 5:21–26CrossRefPubMed Rosemurgy AS, Bloomston M, Serafini FM et al (2001) Frequency with which surgeons undertake pancreaticoduodenectomy determines length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 5:21–26CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, McPhee JT et al (2009) Surgeon volume impacts hospital mortality for pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 249:635–640CrossRefPubMed Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, McPhee JT et al (2009) Surgeon volume impacts hospital mortality for pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 249:635–640CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P et al (2010) Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg 145:634–640CrossRefPubMed Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P et al (2010) Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg 145:634–640CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Tseng JF, Pisters PW, Lee JE et al (2007) The learning curve in pancreatic surgery. Surgery 141:456–463CrossRefPubMed Tseng JF, Pisters PW, Lee JE et al (2007) The learning curve in pancreatic surgery. Surgery 141:456–463CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh S, Purohit T, Aoun E et al (2014) Comparison of the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound based on community hospital versus tertiary academic center settings. Dig Dis Sci 59:1925–1930CrossRefPubMed Singh S, Purohit T, Aoun E et al (2014) Comparison of the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound based on community hospital versus tertiary academic center settings. Dig Dis Sci 59:1925–1930CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Academic status does not affect outcome following complex hepato-pancreato-biliary procedures
verfasst von
Maria S. Altieri
Jie Yang
Donald Groves
Donglei Yin
Kristen Cagino
Mark Talamini
Aurora Pryor
Publikationsdatum
03.11.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5931-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.