Minimally invasive hepatectomy conversions: An analysis of outcomes.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 430-430
Author(s):  
Jack P Silva ◽  
Nicholas G Berger ◽  
Susan Tsai ◽  
Kathleen K. Christians ◽  
Callisia Clarke ◽  
...  

430 Background: Surgical approach has been described as a factor influencing morbidity in patients undergoing hepatectomy. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) converted to open has previously been included in an open hepatectomy cohort of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) dataset for analysis. This study sought to compare MIS conversion to open hepatectomy cases and analyze factors leading to conversion. Methods: The NSQIP data set was queried for patients undergoing hepatectomy for liver disease between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. Cases were divided into three cohorts: completely MIS (laparoscopic or robotic), open, or planned MIS converted to open approach according to the dataset definitions. Demographic, clinical-pathologic, and perioperative variables were described and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: A total of 2,884 patients were identified. Open approach was performed most commonly (80.96%, n = 2,335), followed by minimally invasive (15.05%, n = 434) and MIS converted to open (3.99%, n = 115). Patients undergoing conversion were more likely to have higher BMI, hypertension, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Conversion patients suffered from significantly higher morbidity (p < 0.001) compared to MIS, but had comparable outcomes to open procedures. Conclusions: MIS hepatectomy has been shown to have lower morbidity but similar mortality to open hepatectomy. Conversion procedures appear to have similar outcomes to open procedures, with greater morbidity compared to MIS. Differences in morbidity from previous studies may be partially attributed to the inclusion of conversions in the open hepatectomy cohort.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 447-447
Author(s):  
Jack P Silva ◽  
Nicholas G Berger ◽  
Susan Tsai ◽  
Kathleen K. Christians ◽  
Callisia Clarke ◽  
...  

447 Background: Transfusion is one of the causes of morbidity in hepatectomy, and is a predictor of mortality and cancer recurrence. This study sought to analyze the role of surgical approach in the incidence of transfusion in a large national dataset. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database identified patients undergoing hepatectomy between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. Demographic information, surgical approach, perioperative characteristics, and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared for patients with and without perioperative red blood cell transfusion. Transfusions occurring from surgical start time to 72 hours postoperatively were included in the dataset. Results: A total of 3,064 patients were included in this study. Patients with right lobectomy and trisegmentectomy were more likely to receive transfusion compared to left and partial lobectomies (p < 0.001). Rate of transfusion was highest in unplanned minimally invasive conversion to open hepatectomy compared to open hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery (25.2% vs. 21.2% vs. 6.7% respectively, p < 0.001). Patients requiring transfusion were more likely to suffer from other morbidity (47.1% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001), had a longer median length of stay (7 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), higher readmission rates (14.2% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.001), and higher 30-day mortality (4.9% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001) compared to patients not receiving blood transfusions. Conclusions: Transfusion is the most common morbidity-defining complication associated with hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes are significantly improved if no transfusion was needed. Further work should focus on avoiding unplanned conversion and minimizing blood loss.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 1608-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Bagante ◽  
Gaya Spolverato ◽  
Steven M. Strasberg ◽  
Faiz Gani ◽  
Vanessa Thompson ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S1237
Author(s):  
Fabio Bagante ◽  
Steven M. Strasberg ◽  
Faiz Gani ◽  
Vanessa Thompson ◽  
Bruce L. Hall ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 158 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aru Panwar ◽  
Oleg Militsakh ◽  
Robert Lindau ◽  
Andrew Coughlin ◽  
Harlan Sayles ◽  
...  

Objectives To identify differences in postoperative wound complications associated with a primary tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) at the time of laryngectomy versus no TEP. Study Design Retrospective review of large national data set. Setting Academic and nonacademic health care facilities in United States, contributing de-identified, risk-adjusted clinical data to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Subjects and Methods The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set for years 2006 to 2012 identified 430 patients who underwent total laryngectomy with or without a primary TEP. Patients who underwent a TEP at the time of laryngectomy (n = 68) were compared with patients who underwent laryngectomy without a TEP (n = 362). Postoperative wound complications and secondary outcomes, including medical complications and length of hospitalization, were compared between the groups. Results The incidence of “superficial” and “deep or organ space” surgical site infection, medical complications, return to the operating room, and length of hospitalization were similar between the groups. Patients in the TEP group had a higher overall wound complication rate (relative risk, 2.02; 95% CI = 1.06-3.84; attributable risk, 8.17%; number needed to harm, 12). Conclusions Performance of a primary TEP concurrent to total laryngectomy contributed to a small increase in attributable risk for overall wound complications but did not add substantial risk for “superficial” or “deep or organ space” surgical site infection, medical complications, or increased burden for resource utilization. These data may help inform patient choice and physician recommendations for primary alaryngeal speech rehabilitation.


Urology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 197-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Lacy ◽  
Ramiro J. Madden-Fuentes ◽  
Adam Dugan ◽  
Andrew C. Peterson ◽  
Shubham Gupta

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document