AIM: To compare laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy in light of recent data at our centre.METHODS: The data of patients who underwen appendectomy between January 2011 and June 2013 were collected. The data...AIM: To compare laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy in light of recent data at our centre.METHODS: The data of patients who underwen appendectomy between January 2011 and June 2013 were collected. The data included patients' demographic data, procedure time, length of hospital stay, the need for pain medicine, postoperative visual analog scale o pain, and morbidities. Pregnant women and patients with previous lower abdominal surgery were excluded Patients with surgery converted from laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) to mini-incision open appendectomy(MOA) were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: LA and MOA done by the same surgeon. The patients were randomized into MOA and LA groups a computer-generated number. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made by the surgeon with physica examination, laboratory values, and radiological tests(abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography). Al operations were performed with general anaesthesia The postoperative vision analog scale score was recorded at postoperative hours 1, 6, 12, and 24. Patients were discharged when they tolerated normal food and passed gas and were followed up every week for three weeks as outpatients.RESULTS: Of the 243 patients, 121(49.9%) underwen MOA, while 122(50.1%) had laparoscopic appendectomy There were no significant differences in operation time between the two groups(P = 0.844), whereas the visua analog scale of pain was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group at the 1st hour(P = 0.001), 6th hour(P = 0.001), and 12 th hour(P = 0.027). The need for analgesic medication was significantly higher in the MOA group(P = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of morbidity rate(P = 0.599)The rate of total complications was similar between the two groups(6.5% in LA vs 7.4% in OA, P = 0.599). Al wound infections were treated non-surgically. Six ou of seven patients with pelvic abscess were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage; one patient requiredsurgical drainage after a failed percutaneous drainage. There were no differences in the period of hospital stay, operation time, and postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy decreases the need for analgesic medications and the visual analog scale of pain.CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered as a standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Mini-incision appendectomy is an alternative for a select group of patients.展开更多
AIM:To investigate national trends in distal pancreatectomy(DP) through query of three national patient care databases.METHODS:From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample(NIS,2003-2009),the National Surgical Quality Improvem...AIM:To investigate national trends in distal pancreatectomy(DP) through query of three national patient care databases.METHODS:From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample(NIS,2003-2009),the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project(NSQIP,2005-2010),and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results(SEER,2003-2009) databases using appropriate diagnostic and procedural codes we identified all patients with a diagnosis of a benign or malignant lesion of the body and/or tail of the pancreas that had undergone a partial or distal pancreatectomy.Utilization of laparoscopy was defined in NIS by the International Classification of Diseases,Ninth Revision correspondent procedure code;and in NSQIP by the exploratory laparoscopy or unlisted procedure current procedural terminology codes.In SEER,patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology,Third Edition diagnosis codes and the SEER Program Code Manual,third edition procedure codes.We analyzed the databases with respect to trends of inpatient outcome metrics,oncologic outcomes,and hospital volumes in patients with lesions of the neck and body of the pancreas that underwent operative resection.RESULTS:NIS,NSQIP and SEER identified 4242,2681 and 11 082 DP resections,respectively.Overall,laparoscopy was utilized in 15%(NIS) and 27%(NSQIP).No significant increase was seen over the course of the study.Resection was performed for malignancy in 59%(NIS) and 66%(NSQIP).Neither patient Body mass index nor comorbidities were associated with operative approach(P = 0.95 and P = 0.96,respectively).Mortality(3% vs 2%,P = 0.05) and reoperation(4% vs 4%,P = 1.0) was not different between laparoscopy and open groups.Overall complications(10% vs 15%,P < 0.001),hospital costs [44 741 dollars,interquartile range(IQR) 28 347-74 114 dollars vs 49 792 dollars,IQR 13 299-73 463,P = 0.02] and hospital length of stay(7 d,IQR 4-11 d vs 7 d,IQR 6-10,P < 0.001) were less when laparoscopy was utilized.One and two year survival after resection for malignancy were unchanged over the course of the study(ductal adenocarinoma 1-year 63.6% and 2-year 35.1%,P = 0.53;intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and nueroendocrine 1-year 90% and 2-year 84%,P = 0.25).The majority of resections were performed in teaching hospitals(77% NIS and 85% NSQIP),but minimally invasive surgery(MIS) was not more likely to be used in teaching hospitals(15% vs 14%,P = 0.26).Hospitals in the top decile for volume were more likely to be teaching hospitals than lower volume deciles(88% vs 43%,P < 0.001),but were no more likely to utilize MIS at resection.Complication rate in teaching and the top decile hospitals was not significantly decreased when compared to non-teaching(15% vs 14%,P = 0.72) and lower volume hospitals(14% vs 15%,P = 0.99).No difference was seen in the median number of lymph nodes and lymph node ratio in N1 disease when compared by year(P = 0.17 and P = 0.96,respectively).CONCLUSION:There appears to be an overall underutilization of laparoscopy for DP.Centralization does not appear to be occurring.Survival and lymph node harvest have not changed.展开更多
文摘AIM: To compare laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy in light of recent data at our centre.METHODS: The data of patients who underwen appendectomy between January 2011 and June 2013 were collected. The data included patients' demographic data, procedure time, length of hospital stay, the need for pain medicine, postoperative visual analog scale o pain, and morbidities. Pregnant women and patients with previous lower abdominal surgery were excluded Patients with surgery converted from laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) to mini-incision open appendectomy(MOA) were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: LA and MOA done by the same surgeon. The patients were randomized into MOA and LA groups a computer-generated number. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made by the surgeon with physica examination, laboratory values, and radiological tests(abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography). Al operations were performed with general anaesthesia The postoperative vision analog scale score was recorded at postoperative hours 1, 6, 12, and 24. Patients were discharged when they tolerated normal food and passed gas and were followed up every week for three weeks as outpatients.RESULTS: Of the 243 patients, 121(49.9%) underwen MOA, while 122(50.1%) had laparoscopic appendectomy There were no significant differences in operation time between the two groups(P = 0.844), whereas the visua analog scale of pain was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group at the 1st hour(P = 0.001), 6th hour(P = 0.001), and 12 th hour(P = 0.027). The need for analgesic medication was significantly higher in the MOA group(P = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of morbidity rate(P = 0.599)The rate of total complications was similar between the two groups(6.5% in LA vs 7.4% in OA, P = 0.599). Al wound infections were treated non-surgically. Six ou of seven patients with pelvic abscess were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage; one patient requiredsurgical drainage after a failed percutaneous drainage. There were no differences in the period of hospital stay, operation time, and postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy decreases the need for analgesic medications and the visual analog scale of pain.CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered as a standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Mini-incision appendectomy is an alternative for a select group of patients.
文摘AIM:To investigate national trends in distal pancreatectomy(DP) through query of three national patient care databases.METHODS:From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample(NIS,2003-2009),the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project(NSQIP,2005-2010),and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results(SEER,2003-2009) databases using appropriate diagnostic and procedural codes we identified all patients with a diagnosis of a benign or malignant lesion of the body and/or tail of the pancreas that had undergone a partial or distal pancreatectomy.Utilization of laparoscopy was defined in NIS by the International Classification of Diseases,Ninth Revision correspondent procedure code;and in NSQIP by the exploratory laparoscopy or unlisted procedure current procedural terminology codes.In SEER,patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology,Third Edition diagnosis codes and the SEER Program Code Manual,third edition procedure codes.We analyzed the databases with respect to trends of inpatient outcome metrics,oncologic outcomes,and hospital volumes in patients with lesions of the neck and body of the pancreas that underwent operative resection.RESULTS:NIS,NSQIP and SEER identified 4242,2681 and 11 082 DP resections,respectively.Overall,laparoscopy was utilized in 15%(NIS) and 27%(NSQIP).No significant increase was seen over the course of the study.Resection was performed for malignancy in 59%(NIS) and 66%(NSQIP).Neither patient Body mass index nor comorbidities were associated with operative approach(P = 0.95 and P = 0.96,respectively).Mortality(3% vs 2%,P = 0.05) and reoperation(4% vs 4%,P = 1.0) was not different between laparoscopy and open groups.Overall complications(10% vs 15%,P < 0.001),hospital costs [44 741 dollars,interquartile range(IQR) 28 347-74 114 dollars vs 49 792 dollars,IQR 13 299-73 463,P = 0.02] and hospital length of stay(7 d,IQR 4-11 d vs 7 d,IQR 6-10,P < 0.001) were less when laparoscopy was utilized.One and two year survival after resection for malignancy were unchanged over the course of the study(ductal adenocarinoma 1-year 63.6% and 2-year 35.1%,P = 0.53;intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and nueroendocrine 1-year 90% and 2-year 84%,P = 0.25).The majority of resections were performed in teaching hospitals(77% NIS and 85% NSQIP),but minimally invasive surgery(MIS) was not more likely to be used in teaching hospitals(15% vs 14%,P = 0.26).Hospitals in the top decile for volume were more likely to be teaching hospitals than lower volume deciles(88% vs 43%,P < 0.001),but were no more likely to utilize MIS at resection.Complication rate in teaching and the top decile hospitals was not significantly decreased when compared to non-teaching(15% vs 14%,P = 0.72) and lower volume hospitals(14% vs 15%,P = 0.99).No difference was seen in the median number of lymph nodes and lymph node ratio in N1 disease when compared by year(P = 0.17 and P = 0.96,respectively).CONCLUSION:There appears to be an overall underutilization of laparoscopy for DP.Centralization does not appear to be occurring.Survival and lymph node harvest have not changed.
