337 Perioperative outcomes of open versus minimally invasive nephroureterectomy: An analysis of 896 patients from the ACS NSQIP database

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. e337-e337a
Author(s):  
J. Hanske ◽  
A. Sanchez ◽  
C.P. Meyer ◽  
M. Schmid ◽  
F. Roghmann ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 200 (4) ◽  
pp. 862-867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Linder ◽  
John A. Occhino ◽  
Elizabeth B. Habermann ◽  
Amy E. Glasgow ◽  
Katherine A. Bews ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-359
Author(s):  
Erica F. Bisson ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Michael S. Virk ◽  
John Knightly ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVELumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.RESULTSA total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.


HPB ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 957-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary E. Stiles ◽  
Stephen W. Behrman ◽  
Evan S. Glazer ◽  
Jeremiah L. Deneve ◽  
Lei Dong ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
Michael J. Whalen ◽  
Matthew R. Danzig ◽  
Jamie S. Pak ◽  
Blake D. Alberts ◽  
Ketan K. Badani ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. E10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Adam Khan ◽  
Samuel W. Terman ◽  
Timothy Yee ◽  
Frank La Marca ◽  
...  

Object Minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has proven to be effective in the treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease (DDD). Compared with the traditional open TLIF, the MI procedure has been associated with less blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a shorter hospital stay. However, it is uncertain whether the advantages of an MI TLIF also apply specifically to obese patients. This study was dedicated to evaluating whether obese patients reap the perioperative benefits similar to those seen in patients with normal body mass index (BMI) when undergoing MI TLIF. Methods Obese patients—that is, those with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2—who had undergone single-level TLIF were retrospectively identified and categorized according to BMI: Class I obesity, BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2; Class II obesity, BMI 35.0–39.9 kg/m2; or Class III obesity, BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m2. In each obesity class, patients were stratified by TLIF approach, that is, open versus MI. Perioperative outcomes, including intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), complications (overall, intraoperative, and 30-day postoperative), and hospital length of stay (LOS), were compared. The chi-square test, Fisher exact test, or 2-tailed Student t-test were used when appropriate. Results One hundred twenty-seven patients were included in the final analysis; 49 underwent open TLIF and 78 underwent MI TLIF. Sixty-one patients had Class I obesity (23 open and 38 MI TLIF); 45 patients, Class II (19 open and 26 MI); and 21 patients, Class III (7 open and 14 MI). Overall, mean EBL was 397.2 ml and mean hospital LOS was 3.7 days. Minimally invasive TLIF was associated with significantly less EBL and a shorter hospital stay than open TLIF when all patients were evaluated as a single cohort and within individual obesity classes. Overall, the complication rate was 18.1%. Minimally invasive TLIF was associated with a significantly lower total complication rate (11.5% MI vs 28.6% open) and intraoperative complication rate (3.8% MI vs 16.3% open) as compared with open TLIF. When stratified by obesity class, MI TLIF was still associated with lower rates of total and intraoperative complications. This effect was most profound and statistically significant in patients with Class III obesity (42.9% open vs 7.1% MI). Conclusions Minimally invasive TLIF offers obese patients perioperative benefits similar to those seen in patients with normal BMI who undergo the same procedure. These benefits include less EBL, a shorter hospital stay, and potentially fewer complications compared with open TLIF. Additional large retrospective studies and randomized prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.


Vascular ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 653-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Fereydooni ◽  
Bin Zhou ◽  
Saman Doroodgar Jorshery ◽  
Yanhong Deng ◽  
Alan Dardik ◽  
...  

Objectives Despite reports of increasing use of hybrid surgery for lower extremity revascularization in Europe, little is known about the performance of hybrid procedures in the U.S. This study aims to investigate contemporary national trends in frequency and operator distribution of hybrid lower extremity revascularization and compare the perioperative outcomes of independent vascular surgeons and other surgical specialists. We hypothesized that hybrid procedures are increasingly performed, and independent vascular surgeons have superior outcomes compared to other surgical specialists. Methods The 2005–2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) database was used to identify patients undergoing open or hybrid lower extremity revascularization based on Current Procedural Terminology codes. Only patients treated for peripheral artery disease, based on International Classification of Diseases codes-9, were included. A trend of yearly hybrid lower extremity revascularization compared to open lower extremity revascularization was obtained. The most commonly performed hybrid procedure was identified as well as the specialties of the primary operators. Operators were categorized as “independent vascular surgeons” and “other surgeons” if the primary operator was a non-vascular surgeon or a vascular surgeon assisted by a second specialist as part of a team. Patients undergoing this hybrid lower extremity revascularization by independent vascular surgeons were selected and matched (2:1) to the patients who underwent the same procedure by other surgical specialists. Matching was based on age, gender, functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, transfer status, emergent surgery, and indication. The characteristics and perioperative outcomes of those two groups were compared. Results The overall rate of hybrid procedures increased from 4% in 2005 to 14% in 2015 ( p < 0.0001). During this period, vascular surgeons independently performed 92.9% of all hybrid surgeries, with no significant change in the yearly trend ( p = 0.15). Femoral endarterectomy with retrograde aortoiliac intervention was identified as the most common procedure, accounting for 35.7% and 33.3% of hybrid lower extremity revascularization performed by independent vascular surgeons and other surgeons, respectively. After propensity matching, there were 212 patients treated by independent vascular surgeons and 106 patients treated by other surgeons, with no significant difference in demographics or comorbidities. There was no difference between independent vascular surgeons and other surgeons in mortality (1.4% and 2.8%, respectively, p = 0.30), overall morbidity (19.3% and 18.9% respectively, p = 0.91), and other complications. Conclusion Hybrid lower extremity revascularization for peripheral artery disease has been increasingly used and is performed primarily by independent vascular surgeons. Simple hybrid procedures may be performed safely by vascular surgeons as well as other trained surgical specialists.


2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Sihag ◽  
C. D. Wright ◽  
J. C. Wain ◽  
H. A. Gaissert ◽  
M. Lanuti ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document