8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association of Open Approach vs Laparoscopic Approach With Risk of Surgical Site Infection After Colon Surgery

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study compares the surgical site infection rate associated with laparoscopic colon surgery vs open-approach laparoscopy.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is laparoscopic colon surgery associated with a lower surgical site infection rate than an open approach, even in patients with high medical complexity?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 229 726 patients undergoing colon operations, compared with an open approach, laparoscopic colon surgery was associated with a lower surgical site infection rate regardless of medical comorbidities. Patients with multiple comorbidities underwent open colon surgery more often than laparoscopy.

          Meaning

          Increasing the use of laparoscopy for colon surgery may be associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Colon surgery is associated with a high rate of surgical site infection (SSI), and there is an urgent need for strategies to reduce infection rates.

          Objective

          To assess whether laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with a lower surgical site infection rate than open-approach laparoscopy, especially in patients with medically complex conditions.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cohort study used previously validated diagnosis and procedure codes from Medicare beneficiaries who underwent colon surgery from January 1, 2009, to November 30, 2013. Analyses were performed from August 1 to December 31, 2018.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Outcome measures were SSI events, medical comorbidities, and laparoscopic or open approach procedures.

          Results

          A total of 229 726 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.3 [9.4] years; 128 499 [55.9%] female) underwent colon procedures. There were 105 144 laparoscopic procedures and 124 582 open procedures. The overall mean SSI rate was 6.2%, varying by surgical procedure from 5.8% to 7.6%. Among the full study population, adjusted model results showed a significant association of laparoscopy with lower odds of SSI (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.41-0.46; P < .001). When stratified by surgical approach, the mean SSI rates were 4.1% (procedure-specific range, 3.9%-5.1%) for the laparoscopic approach and 7.9% (procedure-specific range, 7.4%-10.2%) for the open approach. When stratified by Elixhauser score groups, the mean SSI rates were 6.2% (procedure-specific range, 3.2%-8.7%) for group 1 (0-1 comorbidity), 5.5% (procedure-specific range, 3.6%-11.1%) for group 2 (2 comorbidities), and 6.6% (procedure-specific range, 4.6%-10.6%) for group 3 (3-13 comorbidities). An interaction was also observed between laparoscopic approach and Elixhauser groups, with increased odds of SSI among patients who had 3 to 13 comorbidities present at the time of the procedure (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32) compared with patient groups with fewer comorbidities. The population attributable fraction of SSIs for use of the open approach was 34.2%. A total of 2317 of 3882 hospitals (59.7%) performed few (0%-10%) or most (>50%) procedures laparoscopically.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Policy changes that promote surgical education and resources for laparoscopy, especially at low-adoption hospitals, may be associated with reduced colon SSI rates. Support of the development of innovative educational policies may help achieve improvement in patient outcomes and decreased health care use in colon surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          National trends in patient safety for four common conditions, 2005-2011.

          Changes in adverse-event rates among Medicare patients with common medical conditions and conditions requiring surgery remain largely unknown. We used Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System data abstracted from medical records on 21 adverse events in patients hospitalized in the United States between 2005 and 2011 for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, or conditions requiring surgery. We estimated trends in the rate of occurrence of adverse events for which patients were at risk, the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events, and the number of adverse events per 1000 hospitalizations. The study included 61,523 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (19%), congestive heart failure (25%), pneumonia (30%), and conditions requiring surgery (27%). From 2005 through 2011, among patients with acute myocardial infarction, the rate of occurrence of adverse events declined from 5.0% to 3.7% (difference, 1.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 1.9), the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events declined from 26.0% to 19.4% (difference, 6.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.3 to 10.2), and the number of adverse events per 1000 hospitalizations declined from 401.9 to 262.2 (difference, 139.7; 95% CI, 90.6 to 189.0). Among patients with congestive heart failure, the rate of occurrence of adverse events declined from 3.7% to 2.7% (difference, 1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.4), the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events declined from 17.5% to 14.2% (difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.0 to 5.5), and the number of adverse events per 1000 hospitalizations declined from 235.2 to 166.9 (difference, 68.3; 95% CI, 39.9 to 96.7). Patients with pneumonia and those with conditions requiring surgery had no significant declines in adverse-event rates. From 2005 through 2011, adverse-event rates declined substantially among patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure but not among those hospitalized for pneumonia or conditions requiring surgery. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and others.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program.

            The goal of this study was to compare surgical site infection (SSI) rates between laparoscopic (LAP) and open colorectal surgery using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. We identified patients included in the NSQIP database from 2006 to 2007 who underwent LAP and open colorectal surgery. SSI rates were compared for the 2 groups. Association between patient demographics, diagnosis, type of procedure, comorbidities, laboratory values, intraoperative factors, and SSI within 30 days of surgery, were determined using a logistic regression analysis. Among 10,979 patients undergoing colorectal surgery (LAP 31.1%, open 68.9%), the SSI rate was 14.0% (9.5% LAP vs 16.1% open, p or = 3, smoking, diabetes, operative time >180 minutes, appendicitis or diverticulitis, and regional enteritis diseases were found to be significantly associated with high SSI; the LAP approach was associated with a reduced SSI rate. The LAP approach is independently associated with a reduced SSI when compared with open surgery and should, when feasible, be considered for colon and rectal conditions. Copyright 2010 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Hospital level under-utilization of minimally invasive surgery in the United States: retrospective review

              Objective To determine casemix adjusted hospital level utilization of minimally invasive surgery for four common surgical procedures (appendectomy, colectomy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and lung lobectomy) in the United States. Design Retrospective review. Setting United States. Participants Nationwide inpatient sample database, United States 2010. Methods For each procedure, a propensity score model was used to calculate the predicted proportion of minimally invasive operations for each hospital based on patient characteristics. For each procedure, hospitals were categorized into thirds (low, medium, and high) based on their actual to predicted proportion of utilization of minimally invasive surgery. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measures were the actual and predicted proportion of procedures performed with minimally invasive surgery. Secondary outcome measures included surgical complications and hospital characteristics. Results Mean hospital utilization of minimally invasive surgery was 71.0% (423/596) for appendectomy (range 40.9-93.1% (244-555)), 28.4% (154/541) for colectomy (6.7-49.8% (36/541-269/541)), 13.0% (65/499) for hysterectomy (0.0-33.6% (0/499-168/499)), and 32.0% (67/208) for lung lobectomy (3.6-65.7% (7.5/208-137/208)). Utilization of minimally invasive surgery was highly variable for each procedure type. There was noticeable discordance between actual and predicted utilization of the surgery (range of actual to predicted ratio for appendectomy 0-1.49; colectomy 0-3.88; hysterectomy 0-6.68; lung lobectomy 0-2.51). Surgical complications were less common with minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery, respectively: overall rate for appendectomy 3.94% (1439/36 513) v 7.90% (958/12 123), P<0.001; for colectomy: 13.8% (1689/12 242) v 35.8% (8837/24 687), P<0.001; for hysterectomy: 4.69% (270/5757) v 6.64% (1988/29 940), P<0.001; and for lung lobectomy: 17.1% (367/2145) v 25.4% (971/3824), P<0.05. High utilization of minimally invasive surgery was associated with urban location (appendectomy: odds ratio 4.66, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 18.5; colectomy: 4.59, 1.04 to 20.3; hysterectomy: 15.0, 2.98 to 75.0), large hospital size (hysterectomy: 8.70, 1.62 to 46.8), teaching hospital (hysterectomy: 5.41, 1.27 to 23.1), Midwest region (appendectomy: 7.85, 1.26 to 49.1), south region (appendectomy: 21.0, 3.79 to 117; colectomy: 10.0, 1.83 to 54.7), and west region (appendectomy: 9.33, 1.48 to 58.8). Conclusion Hospital utilization of minimally invasive surgery for appendectomy, colectomy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and lung lobectomy varies widely in the United States, representing a disparity in the surgical care delivered nationwide.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                18 October 2019
                October 2019
                18 October 2019
                : 2
                : 10
                : e1913570
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]now with Department of Infectious Diseases, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst
                [4 ]Section of Infectious Disease & International Health, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
                [5 ]now with Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
                [6 ]Division of General Surgery, University of California, San Francisco
                [7 ]Division of Infectious Diseases and the Health Policy Research Institute, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 2, 2019.
                Published: October 18, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13570
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Caroff DA et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Daniel A. Caroff, MD, MPH, Department of Infectious Diseases, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA 01805 ( daniel.caroff@ 123456lahey.org ); Susan Huang, MD, MPH, Division of Infectious Disease, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, 100 Theory, Ste 120, Irvine, CA 92617 ( sshuang@ 123456uci.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Ms Chan and Mr Wolf had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Caroff, Kleinman, Calderwood, Platt.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Caroff, Kleinman, Wick.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Caroff, Chan, Kleinman, Calderwood, Wolf, Platt, Huang.
                Statistical analysis: Chan, Kleinman, Wolf.
                Obtained funding: Calderwood.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Chan, Kleinman, Wolf.
                Supervision: Caroff, Kleinman, Wick, Platt.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms Chan and Drs Calderwood, Wick, and Platt reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study. Dr Kleinman reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Huang reported leading other clinical studies with Molnlycke, Stryker (Sage Products), Clorox, MEDLINE, and Xttrium in which participating hospitals received free soap or cleaning supplies from these companies as part of the study design. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant 5R18HS021424 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Ms Chan and Drs Kleinman, Calderwood, Platt, and Huang).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi190518
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13570
                6813583
                31626316
                949910b7-ff8e-4bdb-bed5-eaace7f0d93b
                Copyright 2019 Caroff DA et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 9 May 2019
                : 2 September 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Infectious Diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article