scholarly journals Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre

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


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 865-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed H. Hamouda ◽  
Matthew J. Forshaw ◽  
Kostas Tsigritis ◽  
Greg E. Jones ◽  
Aliya S. Noorani ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. e337-e337a
Author(s):  
J. Hanske ◽  
A. Sanchez ◽  
C.P. Meyer ◽  
M. Schmid ◽  
F. Roghmann ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (20) ◽  
pp. 4787
Author(s):  
Shinya Matsuzaki ◽  
Maximilian Klar ◽  
Erica J. Chang ◽  
Satoko Matsuzaki ◽  
Michihide Maeda ◽  
...  

This study examined the effect of hospital surgical volume on oncologic outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic malignancies. The objectives were to assess survival outcomes related to hospital surgical volume and to evaluate perioperative outcomes and examine non-gynecologic malignancies. Literature available from the PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed. All surgical procedures including gynecologic surgery with hospital surgical volume information were eligible for analysis. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine gastro-intestinal studies, seven genitourinary studies, four gynecological studies, two hepatobiliary studies, and one thoracic study were reviewed. Of those, 11 showed a positive volume–outcome association for perioperative outcomes. A study on MIS for ovarian cancer reported lower surgical morbidity in high-volume centers. Two studies were on endometrial cancer, of which one showed lower treatment costs in high-volume centers and the other showed no association with perioperative morbidity. Another study examined robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found no volume–outcome association for surgical morbidity. There were no gynecologic studies examining the association between hospital surgical volume and oncologic outcomes in MIS. The volume–outcome association for oncologic outcome in gynecologic MIS is understudied. This lack of evidence calls for further studies to address this knowledge gap.


Author(s):  
Philippe Rinieri ◽  
Moussa Ouattara ◽  
Geoffrey Brioude ◽  
Anderson Loundou ◽  
Henri de Lesquen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Linder ◽  
John Occhino ◽  
Elizabeth Habermann ◽  
Amy Glasgow ◽  
Boris Gershman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document