Khoshhal Zeyad, Canner Joseph, Schneider Eric, Stem Miloslawa, Haut Elliott, Schlottmann Francisco, Barbetta Arianna, Mungo Benedetto, Lidor Anne, Molena Daniela
1 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Concentration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , Baltimore, Maryland.
2 Department of Surgery, Taibah University School of Medicine , Madinah, Saudi Arabia .
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Sep;27(9):924-930. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0083. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
Surgery for benign esophageal disease is mostly performed either by general surgeons (GS) or cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS) in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surgeon specialty on perioperative outcomes of surgery for benign esophageal diseases.
We have conducted a retrospective analysis using the ACS-NSQIP during the period of 2006-2013. Patients who underwent paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair, gastric fundoplication, or Heller esophagomyotomy were divided into two groups according to the specialty of the surgeon (GS or CTS). Outcomes compared between the two groups using multivariable logistic regression included 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, discharge destination, hospital length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates.
Most of the surgeries were performed by general surgeons (PEH: 97.1%; fundoplication: 97.6%; Heller: 91.6%). Patients had lower comorbidities, better physical condition, and underwent a laparoscopic approach more frequently in the GS group. Regression analysis showed that GS group had a lower mortality rate (operating room, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.86; P = .017), shorter LOS, and more home discharge for patients undergoing PEH repair. Mortality, morbidity, readmission, LOS, and home discharge were comparable between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy.
GS perform most of esophageal surgeries for benign diseases. GS group has better outcomes in PEH repair compared with CTS, whereas there is no difference in the overall outcomes between GS and CTS in fundoplication and Heller esophagomyotomy. These results show that specialization is not always the answer to better outcomes. Difference in outcomes, however, might be related to disease severity, approach needed, or case volume.
在美国,良性食管疾病的手术大多由普通外科医生(GS)或心胸外科医生(CTS)进行。本研究的目的是评估外科医生专业对良性食管疾病手术围手术期结局的影响。
我们使用2006年至2013年期间的美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)进行了一项回顾性分析。接受食管旁疝(PEH)修补术、胃底折叠术或海勒食管肌层切开术的患者根据外科医生的专业(GS或CTS)分为两组。使用多变量逻辑回归比较两组之间的结局,包括30天死亡率、总体发病率、出院目的地、住院时间(LOS)和再入院率。
大多数手术由普通外科医生进行(PEH:97.1%;胃底折叠术:97.6%;海勒手术:91.6%)。GS组患者的合并症较少,身体状况较好,且更频繁地采用腹腔镜手术方式。回归分析显示,在接受PEH修补术的患者中,GS组的死亡率较低(手术室,0.44;95%置信区间[CI]:0.23 - 0.86;P = 0.017),住院时间较短,且更多患者回家出院。在胃底折叠术和海勒食管肌层切开术中,GS组和CTS组在死亡率、发病率、再入院率、住院时间和回家出院方面相当。
GS进行了大多数良性疾病的食管手术。与CTS相比,GS组在PEH修补术中的结局更好,而在胃底折叠术和海勒食管肌层切开术中,GS组和CTS组的总体结局没有差异。这些结果表明,专业化并不总是带来更好结局的答案。然而,结局的差异可能与疾病严重程度、所需手术方式或病例数量有关。