Suppr超能文献

捆绑术与旁路手术:根据前瞻性、多中心、风险调整后的美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)数据评估的减肥手术的30天发病率和死亡率

Bands and bypasses: 30-day morbidity and mortality of bariatric surgical procedures as assessed by prospective, multi-center, risk-adjusted ACS-NSQIP data.

作者信息

Lancaster Robert T, Hutter Matthew M

机构信息

Department of Surgery, The Codman Center for Clinical Effectiveness in Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street-Wang ACC 335, Boston, MA 02114, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2008 Dec;22(12):2554-63. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0074-y. Epub 2008 Sep 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous multi-institution comparisons of open and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB and LRYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) have been limited by the lack of unique current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Specific codes have been available for LRYGB and LAGB since 2005 and 2006, respectively. We compare the short-term safety of these procedures, using risk-adjusted clinical data from a multi-institutional quality improvement program.

METHODS

The America College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File (PUF) was used to compare patients undergoing LRYGB with those undergoing ORYGB or LAGB.

RESULTS

ORYGB versus LRYGB: The 2-year study period (2005-2006) included 5,777 patients (ORYGB = 1,146, LRYGB = 4,631). Patients undergoing ORYGB experienced a higher 30-day incidence of mortality (0.79% vs. 0.17%; p = 0.002), major complications rate (7.42% vs. 3.37%; p < 0.0001), any complication rate (13.18% vs. 6.69%; p < 0.0001), return visits to the OR (4.97% vs. 3.56%; p = 0.032), and longer postoperative length of stay (LOS) (median 3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.0001). After risk adjustment, ORYGB continued to demonstrate higher odds of major complication (OR = 2.04; [1.54, 2.69]). LAGB versus LRYGB: Analysis of 1 year of data from 2006 included 4,756 patients (LRYGB = 3,580, LAGB = 1,176). Those treated with LAGB experienced an equivalent 30-day mortality (0.09% vs. 0.14%; p = 1.0), and a lower rate of major complications (1.0% vs. 3.3%; p < 0.0001), any complication (2.6% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.0001), return visits to the OR (0.94% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.0001), and shorter postoperative LOS (median 1 vs. 2 days; p < 0.0001). Risk adjustment showed that LAGB was associated with a lower major complication odds (OR = 0.29; [0.16, 0.53]).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LRYGB, ORYGB is associated with higher 30-day mortality and higher risk-adjusted major complication rate. While ORYGB may sometimes be indicated, a laparoscopic approach may be safer for RYGB when feasible. LAGB, compared with LRYGB, has a similarly low mortality rate and a small but statistically significant decrease in risk-adjusted 30-day complications. Clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes will need to be evaluated to determine superiority between these procedures.

摘要

背景

以往对开放式和腹腔镜下Roux-en-Y胃旁路术(ORYGB和LRYGB)以及腹腔镜可调节胃束带术(LAGB)的多机构比较,因缺乏独特的当前手术操作术语(CPT)编码而受到限制。自2005年和2006年起,分别有LRYGB和LAGB的特定编码。我们使用来自多机构质量改进项目的风险调整临床数据,比较这些手术的短期安全性。

方法

美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进项目(ACS-NSQIP)参与者使用文件(PUF)用于比较接受LRYGB的患者与接受ORYGB或LAGB的患者。

结果

ORYGB与LRYGB比较:2年研究期(2005 - 2006年)纳入5777例患者(ORYGB = 1146例,LRYGB = 4631例)。接受ORYGB的患者30天死亡率更高(0.79%对0.17%;p = 0.002),主要并发症发生率更高(7.42%对3.37%;p < 0.0001),任何并发症发生率更高(13.18%对6.69%;p < 0.0001),返回手术室的比例更高(4.97%对3.56%;p = 0.032),术后住院时间更长(中位数3天对2天;p < 0.0001)。风险调整后,ORYGB仍显示主要并发症的几率更高(OR = 2.04;[1.54, 2.69])。LAGB与LRYGB比较:对2006年1年数据的分析纳入4756例患者(LRYGB = 3580例,LAGB = 1176例)。接受LAGB治疗的患者30天死亡率相当(0.09%对0.14%;p = 1.0),主要并发症发生率更低(1.0%对3.3%;p < 0.0001),任何并发症发生率更低(2.6%对6.7%;p < 0.0001),返回手术室的比例更低(0.94%对3.6%;p < 0.0001),术后住院时间更短(中位数1天对2天;p < 0.0001)。风险调整显示LAGB与较低的主要并发症几率相关(OR = 0.29;[0.16, 0.53])。

结论

与LRYGB相比,ORYGB与更高的30天死亡率和更高的风险调整主要并发症发生率相关。虽然ORYGB有时可能是必要的,但可行时腹腔镜手术方式对RYGB可能更安全。与LRYGB相比,LAGB死亡率同样较低,且风险调整后的30天并发症有小但具有统计学意义的降低。需要评估临床疗效和长期结果以确定这些手术之间的优势。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验