Impact of Operative Time on Outcomes after Pancreatic Resection: A Risk-Adjusted Analysis Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database

2018 ◽  
Vol 226 (5) ◽  
pp. 844-857.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Maggino ◽  
Jason B. Liu ◽  
Brett L. Ecker ◽  
Henry A. Pitt ◽  
Charles M. Vollmer
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Adjusted Analysis ◽  
American College Of Surgeons

scholarly journals LAPAROSCOPIC PANCREATIC RESECTION. FROM ENUCLEATION TO PANCREATODUODENECTOMY. 11-YEAR EXPERIENCE

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Autran Cesar MACHADO ◽  
Rodrigo Canada Trofo SURJAN ◽  
Suzan Menasce GOLDMAN ◽  
Jose Celso ARDENGH ◽  
Fabio Ferrari MAKDISSI
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Uncinate Process ◽  
Central Pancreatectomy ◽  
Endocrine Insufficiency ◽  
Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Resection Of The Pancreas ◽  
Totally Laparoscopic

Context Our experience with laparoscopic pancreatic resection began in 2001. During initial experience, laparoscopy was reserved for selected cases. With increasing experience more complex laparoscopic procedures such as central pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomies were performed. Objectives The aim of this paper is to review our personal experience with laparoscopic pancreatic resection over 11-year period. Methods All patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatic resection from 2001 through 2012 were reviewed. Preoperative data included age, gender, and indication for surgery. Intraoperative variables included operative time, bleeding, blood transfusion. Diagnosis, tumor size, margin status were determined from final pathology reports. Results Since 2001, 96 patients underwent laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Median age was 55 years old. 60 patients were female and 36 male. Of these, 88 (91.6%) were performed totally laparoscopic; 4 (4.2%) needed hand-assistance, 1 robotic assistance. Three patients were converted. Four patients needed blood transfusion. Operative time varied according type of operation. Mortality was nil but morbidity was high, mainly due to pancreatic fistula (28.1%). Sixty-one patients underwent distal pancreatectomy, 18 underwent pancreatic enucleation, 7 pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomies, 5 uncinate process resection, 3 central and 2 total pancreatectomies. Conclusions Laparoscopic resection of the pancreas is a reality. Pancreas sparing techniques, such as enucleation, resection of uncinate process and central pancreatectomy, should be used to avoid exocrine and/or endocrine insufficiency that could be detrimental to the patient's quality of life. Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is a safe operation but should be performed in specialized centers by highly skilled laparoscopic surgeons.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Yu Pan ◽  
Chao-jie Huang ◽  
Qi-long Chen ◽  
Ren-chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Distal Pancreatectomy ◽  
Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Low Grade

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) has been widely used in the treatment of benign and low-grade pancreatic diseases. It is necessary to expand the current knowledge on the feasibility and safety of LPR for PDAC. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses, aiming to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).Methods: Data of patients who underwent DP and PD for PDAC from January 2004 to February 2020 in our hospital were obtained. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effect, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. One-to-one PSM was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors including age, sex, BMI, and tumor size.Results: Patient demographics were well matched after PSM. The DP subgroup included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD subgroup included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and comparable overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. LPD was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, and comparable overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumor sizes, R0 resection rate and tumor stage in both DP and PD subgroup. However, laparoscopic procedures seems to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph node (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). There was no statistical significance between both groups in recurrence pattern, and 3-year recurrence-free and overall survival were comparable between groups.Conclusions: Both LDP and LPD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC. Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival of LDP and LPD are not inferior or superior to open surgery. However, the short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as obvious as LDP mainly due to the conversions. Our findings should be further evaluated by multicenter or randomized controlled trials.

Impact of Intraperitoneal Drain on Postoperative Morbidity after Pancreatic Resection: An American College of Surgeons NSQIP Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (4) ◽  
pp. e35
Author(s):  
Omar Picado ◽  
Jessica R. Brosch ◽  
Gustavo A. Rubio ◽  
Danny Yakoub ◽  
Dido Franceschi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Postoperative Morbidity ◽  
American College Of Surgeons

scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Yu Pan ◽  
Chao-jie Huang ◽  
Qi-long Chen ◽  
Ren-chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Distal Pancreatectomy ◽  
Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Tumour Size ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Survival Outcomes

Abstract Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Methods We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. Results Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate. Conclusions Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

Perioperative Blood Transfusions or Operative Time: Which Drives Post-Hepatectomy Outcomes?

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482199866
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Fagenson ◽  
Henry A. Pitt ◽  
Kwan N. Lau
Keyword(s):  
Operative Time ◽  
Blood Transfusions ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Surgical Quality ◽  
Hepatobiliary Cancer ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Multivariable Regression ◽  
Logistic Regressions ◽  
Prolonged Operative Time ◽  
Median Operative Time

Background Perioperative blood transfusions and operative time are surgical quality indicators. The aim of this analysis is to determine which of these variables drives post-hepatectomy outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing major or partial hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hepatectomy targeted database. Prolonged operative time was defined as ≥ 240 minutes. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed for multiple postoperative outcomes. Results Of 20 521 hepatectomies, 18% of patients received a perioperative transfusion, and the median operative time was 218 minutes. Patients receiving a transfusion had a significant ( P < .001) increase in mortality (5.1% vs. .7%) and serious morbidity (43% vs. 16%). Prolonged operative time was associated with significantly ( P < .001) increased mortality (2.4% vs. .8%) and serious morbidity (29% vs. 14%). Those with primary hepatobiliary cancer had the highest rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to patients with metastatic and benign disease when a transfusion occurred. On multivariable regression analyses, perioperative transfusions conferred a higher risk ( P < .001) than prolonged operative time for mortality (OR 5.02 vs. 1.47) and serious morbidity (OR 2.56 vs. 1.50). Conclusions Perioperative blood transfusions are a more robust predictor of post-hepatectomy outcomes than increased operative time, especially in patients with primary hepatobiliary cancer.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma: separate propensity score matching analyses of distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Yu Pan ◽  
Chao-jie Huang ◽  
Qi-long Chen ◽  
Ren-chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Distal Pancreatectomy ◽  
Pancreatic Resection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Tumour Size ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Survival Outcomes

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Methods: We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. Results: Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes. These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate. Conclusions: Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.

scholarly journals Resident Involvement in Shoulder Arthroscopy Is Not Associated With Short-term Risk to Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596711881629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryce A. Basques ◽  
Bryan M. Saltzman ◽  
Erik N. Mayer ◽  
Bernard R. Bach ◽  
Anthony A. Romeo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Shoulder Arthroscopy ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Resident Involvement ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Perioperative Risks

Background: Shoulder arthroscopy is a commonly performed, critical component of orthopaedic residency training. However, it is unclear whether there are additional risks to patients in cases associated with resident involvement. Purpose: To compare shoulder arthroscopy cases with and without resident involvement via a large, prospectively maintained national surgical registry to characterize perioperative risks. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The prospectively maintained American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry was queried to identify patients who underwent 1 of 12 shoulder arthroscopy procedures from 2005 through 2012. Multivariate Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to compare the rates of postoperative adverse events and readmission within 30 days between cases with and without resident involvement. Multivariate linear regression was used to compare operative time between cohorts. Results: A total of 15,774 patients with shoulder arthroscopy were included in the study, and 12.3% of these had a resident involved with the case. The overall rate of adverse events was 1.09%. On multivariate analysis, resident involvement was not associated with increased rates of any aggregate or individual adverse event. There was also no association between resident involvement and risk of readmission within 30 days. Resident involvement was not associated with any difference in operative time ( P = .219). Conclusion: Resident involvement in shoulder arthroscopy was not associated with increased risk of adverse events, increased operative time, or readmission within 30 days. The results of this study suggest that resident involvement in shoulder arthroscopy cases is a safe method for trainees to learn these procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document