Comparison of outcomes following laparoscopic and open treatment of emergent small bowel obstruction: an 11-year analysis of ACS NSQIP

Comparison of outcomes following laparoscopic and open treatment of emergent small bowel... Background Small bowel obstruction (SBO) continues to be a common indication for acute care surgery. While open procedures are still widely used for treatment, laparoscopic procedures may have important advantages in certain patient populations. We aim to analyze differences in outcomes between the two for treatment of bowel obstruction. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to find patients that underwent emergent or non-elective surgery for SBO. Propensity matching was used to create comparable groups. Logistic regression was used to assess differences in the primary outcome of interest, return to operating room, and morbidity and mortality outcomes. Logistic regression was also used to assess the contribution of various preoperative demographic and comorbidity characteristics to 30-day mortality. Results A total of 24,028 patients underwent surgery for SBO from 2005 to 2011. Of those, 3391 were laparoscopic. Pro- pensity matching resulted in 6782 matched patients. Laparoscopic cases had significantly decreased odds of experiencing any morbidity and wound complications compared to open cases in bowel-resection and adhesiolysis-only cases. There was no significant difference found for odds of returning to operating room. Laparoscopic cases resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays than open cases (7.18 vs.10.84 days, p < http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Surgical Endoscopy Springer Journals

Comparison of outcomes following laparoscopic and open treatment of emergent small bowel obstruction: an 11-year analysis of ACS NSQIP

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/comparison-of-outcomes-following-laparoscopic-and-open-treatment-of-TC0b2LRUmn
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Surgery; Gynecology; Gastroenterology; Hepatology; Proctology; Abdominal Surgery
ISSN
0930-2794
eISSN
1432-2218
D.O.I.
10.1007/s00464-018-6249-2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background Small bowel obstruction (SBO) continues to be a common indication for acute care surgery. While open procedures are still widely used for treatment, laparoscopic procedures may have important advantages in certain patient populations. We aim to analyze differences in outcomes between the two for treatment of bowel obstruction. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to find patients that underwent emergent or non-elective surgery for SBO. Propensity matching was used to create comparable groups. Logistic regression was used to assess differences in the primary outcome of interest, return to operating room, and morbidity and mortality outcomes. Logistic regression was also used to assess the contribution of various preoperative demographic and comorbidity characteristics to 30-day mortality. Results A total of 24,028 patients underwent surgery for SBO from 2005 to 2011. Of those, 3391 were laparoscopic. Pro- pensity matching resulted in 6782 matched patients. Laparoscopic cases had significantly decreased odds of experiencing any morbidity and wound complications compared to open cases in bowel-resection and adhesiolysis-only cases. There was no significant difference found for odds of returning to operating room. Laparoscopic cases resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays than open cases (7.18 vs.10.84 days, p <

Journal

Surgical EndoscopySpringer Journals

Published: Jun 4, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off