Comparison of Laparoscopic vs Open Sigmoid Colectomy for Benign and Malignant Disease at Academic Medical Centers

2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1423-1430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo W. Hinojosa ◽  
Zuri A. Murrell ◽  
Viken R. Konyalian ◽  
Steven Mills ◽  
Ninh T. Nguyen ◽  
...  
2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (10) ◽  
pp. 1300-1304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph C. Carmichael ◽  
Hossein Masoomi ◽  
Steven Mills ◽  
Michael J. Stamos ◽  
Ninh T. Nguyen

Use of laparoscopy in colorectal cancer surgery is still limited. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of use of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer at academic medical centers and to evaluate if the site of surgery influences the rate of use. Clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic or open colon and rectal resections for cancer from 2007 to 2009 were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium database. Data concerning rate of laparoscopy, length of stay, morbidity, and risk-adjusted mortality were obtained. During the 36-month study period, 22,780 operations were performed. The overall rate for use of laparoscopy was 14.8 per cent. Laparoscopy was most often used for total colectomy (22.6%), sigmoid colectomy (17.3%), cecectomy (17.1%), and right hemicolectomy (17.0%). Laparoscopy was most infrequently used for abdominoperineal resection (8.0%), transverse colectomy (10.0%), and left hemicolectomy (13.1%). Length of stay for laparoscopic colon and rectal procedures was 3.2 days shorter than for open surgery. Although the benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer have been demonstrated, the use of laparoscopy for colorectal resection remains under 20 per cent for colon cancer and under 10 per cent for rectal cancer. Further studies are needed to determine the factors limiting the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.


Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894471989881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Pong ◽  
Wouter F. van Leeuwen ◽  
Kamil Oflazoglu ◽  
Philip E. Blazar ◽  
Neal Chen

Background: Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) is a treatment option for many debilitating wrist conditions. With recent improvements in implant design, indications for TWA have broadened. However, despite these improvements, there are still complications associated with TWA, such as unplanned reoperation and eventual implant removal. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for an unplanned reoperation or implant revision after a TWA at 2 academic medical centers between 2002 and 2015. Methods: In this retrospective study, 24 consecutive TWAs were identified using CPT codes. Medical records were manually reviewed to identify demographic, patient- or disease-related, and surgery-related risk factors for reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA. Results: Forty-six percent of wrists (11 of 24 TWAs performed) had a reoperation after a median of 3.4 years, while 29% (7 of 24) underwent implant revision after a median of 5 years. Two patients had wrist surgery prior to their TWA, both eventually had their implant removed ( P = .08). There were no risk factors associated with reoperation or implant removal. Conclusion: Unplanned reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA are common. Approximately 1 in 3 wrists are likely to undergo revision surgery. We found no factors associated with reoperation or implant removal; however, prior wrist surgery showed a trend toward risk of implant removal after TWA.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Myers ◽  
Anjala V. Tess ◽  
Katherine McKinney ◽  
Glenn Rosenbluth ◽  
Vineet M. Arora ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document