Journal of the American College of Surgeons
-
Comparative Study
Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches to Major or Challenging Hepatectomy.
The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique. ⋯ In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.
-
Comparative Study Observational Study
Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Common Bile Duct Exploration: Analysis of the NSQIP Database.
Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is an available option in the management of choledocholithiasis. We aimed to analyze outcomes comparing laparoscopic and open approaches to CBDE using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP database. ⋯ Patients undergoing open CBDE suffer from a statistically significantly higher rate of mortality and overall complications compared with patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic CBDE should be considered as the preferred procedure whenever possible.
-
The American College of Surgeons NSQIP offers a Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) that provides detailed, patient-level, risk assessments for many adverse outcomes to surgeons, patients, and the general public. The SRC calculator was designed to help guide discussion and decisions by providing generally applicable (not hospital-specific) information about surgical risk using easily understood and broadly available preoperative variables. Although large, internal evaluations have shown that the SRC has good accuracy (model discrimination and calibration), external validations have been inconsistent and tend to favor a conclusion of inadequate performance. ⋯ The SRC predictive failures, reported by studies with the described design limitations, should not be misunderstood as disqualifying the SRC as an accurate and appropriate tool for its intended purpose of providing a general purpose risk calculator, applicable across many surgical domains, using easily understood and generally available predictive information.
-
Recent improvements to morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference have focused on the case review system. However, case selection occurs by physician reporting, which is limited by selection bias. We compared the effectiveness of our M&M conference with the NSQIP-Pediatric (NSQIP-P) system for identifying adverse events. ⋯ The NSQIP-P identified more complications than M&M. The M&M conference improvements increased reported cases, but they still remained lower than NSQIP-P. However, M&M conference identified events resulting in systems changes that would not have been identified by NSQIP-P. Although NSQIP-P captures occurrences to compare large patient cohorts, M&M analyzes singular failures and initiates direct interventions. Integration of these systems can optimize their usefulness in quality improvement.