Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Outcomes of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair based on surgical specialty: thoracic versus general surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal Hernia Repairs (HHR) are performed by both general surgeons (GS) and thoracic surgeons (TS). However, there are limited literature with respect to outcomes of HHR based on specialty training. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for HHR performed by GS versus TS. METHODS: The Vizient database was used to identify patients who underwent elective laparoscopic HHR between October 2014 and June 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgeon's specialty (GS vs. TS). Patient demographics and outcomes including in-hospital mortality were compared between groups. RESULTS: During the study period 13,764 patients underwent HHR by either GS or TS. GS performed 9930 (72%) cases while TS performed 3834 (28%) cases. There was no significant difference between GS versus TS with regard to serious morbidity (1.28% vs. 1.30%, p = 0.97) or mortality (0.10% vs. 0.21%, p = 0.19). The mortality index was 0.24 for GS versus 0.45 for TS. Compared to TS, laparoscopic HHR performed by GS was associated with a shorter LOS (2.57 days vs. 2.72 days, p < 0.001) and lower mean hospital costs ($7139 vs. $8032, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of academic centers, laparoscopic HHRs are mostly performed by GS with comparable outcome between general versus thoracic surgeons.

Laparoscopic fundoplication compared with laparoscopic gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is commonly associated with morbid obesity. Laparoscopic fundoplication is a standard surgical treatment for GERD, and laparoscopic gastric bypass has been shown to effectively resolve GERD symptoms in the morbidly obese. We sought to compare the in-hospital outcomes of morbidly obese patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for the treatment of GERD versus laparoscopic gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity and related conditions, including GERD, at U.S. academic medical centers. METHODS: Using the "International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision" procedural and diagnoses codes for morbidly obese patients with GERD, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium database for all patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication or laparoscopic gastric bypass from October 2004 to December 2007 (n=27,264). The outcome measures included the patient demographics, length of stay, in-hospital overall complications, mortality, risk-adjusted mortality ratio (observed to expected mortality), and hospital costs. RESULTS: Compared with the patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass, those who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication had a lower severity of illness score (P<.05). The overall in-hospital complications were significantly lower in the laparoscopic gastric bypass group (P<.05). The mean length of stay, observed mortality, risk-adjusted mortality, and hospital costs were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gastric bypass is as safe as laparoscopic fundoplication for the treatment of GERD in the morbidly obese. Hence, morbidly obese patients with GERD should be referred for bariatric surgery evaluation and offered laparoscopic gastric bypass as a surgical option.

National trends in use and outcome of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is gaining popularity in the United States. Our objective was to examine the use and outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding at academic medical centers. METHODS: Using the "International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision" diagnosis and procedure codes, data were obtained from the University Health System Consortium Clinical Database for all laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and gastric bypass procedures performed from 2004 to 2007. Quartile trends in the use of all procedures were determined, and a comparison of in-hospital morbidity and mortality between laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic gastric bypass was performed. RESULTS: A total of 31,333 bariatric surgery procedures were performed from 2004 to 2007. During this period, the use of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and gastric bypass procedures increased from 7% to 23% and 53% to 66%, respectively. A concurrent decrease occurred in the use of open gastric bypass procedures from 40% to 11%. Compared with laparoscopic gastric bypass, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay (1.3 versus 2.7 d, P<.01), lower morbidity (2.8% versus 7.5%, P<.01), lower 30-day readmission rate (.7% versus 2.5%, P<.01), lower in-hospital mortality (.02% versus .08%, P<.01), and lower hospital cost ($8689 versus 14,386, P<.01). CONCLUSION: From 2004 to 2007, significant growth occurred in the number of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (+329%) and laparoscopic gastric bypass (+125%) procedures, with a precipitous decrease in the number of open gastric bypass (-73%) procedures. The increasing popularity of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band procedure could in part be related to the lower cost and lower morbidity compared with laparoscopic gastric bypass.

Laparoscopic improves perioperative outcomes of antireflux surgery at US academic centers.

BACKGROUND: Open and laparoscopic antireflux surgeries are standard for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The in-hospital outcomes of laparoscopic and open antireflux procedures were analyzed and compared at US academic medical centers. METHODS: Using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for 5,737 patients with GERD that underwent open (n = 1,377) or laparoscopic (n = 4,360) antireflux surgery were identified from the University Health-System Consortium Database over a 3-year period (2004-2007). Demographic and outcome data measured included length of stay, overall complications, in-hospital mortality, observed-to-expected mortality ratio (risk-adjusted mortality), and hospital costs. RESULTS: Laparoscopic antireflux procedures offered significantly lower mean length of stay, in-hospital morbidity, and hospital costs. Both procedures had a low observed to expected in-hospital mortality. Open surgery was associated with significantly higher procedure-related and pulmonary complications. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of US academic centers, approximately three quarters of antireflux procedures are being performed using the laparoscopic approach. These data suggest that laparoscopy has improved in-hospital outcomes when compared with open surgery and is preferred for the surgical treatment of GERD.

Laparoscopy should be the approach of choice for acute appendicitis in the morbidly obese.

BACKGROUND: The current study compared the outcome of morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. METHODS: We obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database on 1,943 morbidly obese patients who underwent appendectomy for acute or perforated appendicitis between 2002 and 2007. RESULTS: Compared to open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of stay (3 vs 4 days) and a lower overall complication rate (9% vs 17%). Most notably, a lower rate of wound infection was noted (1% vs 3%). Within a subset analysis of morbidly obese patients who underwent appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, there was a higher overall complication rate (27% vs 18%) and cost ($16,600 vs $12,300) in the open appendectomy group. CONCLUSION: In the morbidly obese, laparoscopic appendectomy performed for acute and perforated appendicitis is associated with a shorter length of stay and lower morbidity and costs. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the procedure of choice for the treatment of acute appendicitis in the morbidly obese population.

Outcomes of right and left colectomy at academic centers.

Few studies have compared outcomes of right colectomy (RC) and left colectomy (LC) with respect to both benign and malignant disease. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of RC versus LC for benign and malignant disease using a national administrative database of academic medical centers. Using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnosis and procedure codes, data was obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for patients that underwent RC and LC for benign and malignant disease between 2002 and 2006. The main outcomes compared were demographics, length of hospital stay, observed to expected in-hospital mortality, complications, 30-day readmission, and mean cost. There were a total of 27,483 patients; 12,971 patients (47.2%) underwent RC. Compared with LC for benign disease, RC was associated with a shorter length of stay, lower overall complications, lower wound infections, lower 30-day readmissions, and lower cost. Compared with LC for malignant disease, RC was associated with lower overall complications, lower wound infections, and lower cost. In this analysis of academic centers, RC was associated with a lower length of stay, lower morbidity, and lower cost when compared with LC for benign and malignant disease.