Search

Background: Minimally invasive surgical approaches for gastric adenocarcinoma are increasing in prevalence. Although recent studies suggest such approaches are associated with improvements in short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes have not been well studied. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of minimally invasive gastrectomy on long-term survival.Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2015. Patient characteristics were stratified by open and minimally invasive approaches and compared using chi-square and t tests. Unadjusted survival functions were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Multivariable modeling of risks factors for survival was analyzed with Cox proportional hazard models. Covariate imbalance was controlled using propensity score matching.Results: The study included 17,449 patients who underwent gastrectomy. Cox proportional hazard modeling demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery improved survival (hazard ratio = 0.86, P < 0.0001). Predictors of worsened survival included community facility type, comorbidities, tumor size, extent of gastrectomy, clinical T and N staging (P < 0.0060 for all). After propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery had a significantly improved survival at 5 years compared to an open approach, 51.9% versus 47.7% (P < 0.0001). Survival was not significantly different between propensity score-matched patients who received laparoscopic and robotic approaches (P = 0.2611).Conclusions: Minimally invasive approaches for gastric carcinoma are associated with improved long-term survival. There was no significant difference in survival when comparing laparoscopic to robotic gastrectomy. The mechanisms that drive these improvements deserve further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: In trauma populations, improvements in outcome are documented in institutions with higher case volumes. However, it is not known whether improved outcomes are attributable to the case volume within specific higher-risk groups, such as the elderly, or to the case volume among all trauma patients treated by an institution., Objective: To test the hypothesis that outcomes of trauma care for geriatric patients are affected differently by the volume of geriatric cases and nongeriatric cases of an institution., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study using a statewide trauma registry was set in state-designated levels 1 and 2 trauma centers in Pennsylvania. It included 39 431 eligible geriatric trauma patients (aged >65 years) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study., Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality, major complications, and mortality after major complications (failure to rescue)., Results: Between 2001 and 2010, 39 431 geriatric trauma patients and 105 046 nongeriatric patients were captured in a review of outcomes in 20 state-designated levels 1 and 2 trauma centers. Larger volumes of geriatric trauma patients were significantly associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue. In contrast, larger nongeriatric trauma volumes were significantly associated with higher odds of major complications in geriatric patients., Conclusions and Relevance: Higher rates of in-hospital mortality, major complications, and failure to rescue were associated with lower volumes of geriatric trauma care and paradoxically with higher volumes of trauma care for younger patients. These findings offer the possibility that outcomes might be improved with differentiated pathways of care for geriatric trauma patients.

Background: Experts become automated when performing surgery, making it difficult to teach complex procedures to trainees. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) enables experts to articulate operative steps and cognitive decisions in complex procedures such as laparoscopic appendectomy, which can then be used to identify central teaching points., Methods: Three local surgeon experts in laparoscopic appendectomy were interviewed using critical decision method-based CTA methodology. Interview transcripts were analyzed, and a cognitive demands table (CDT) was created for each expert. The individual CDTs were reviewed by each expert for completeness and then combined into a master CDT. Percentage agreement on operative steps and decision points was calculated for each expert. The experts then participated in a consensus meeting to review the master CDT. Each surgeon expert was asked to identify in the master CDT the most important teaching objectives for junior-level and senior-level residents. The experts' responses for junior-level and senior-level residents were compared using a χ(2) test., Results: The surgeon experts identified 24 operative steps and 27 decision points. Eighteen of the 24 operative steps (75%) were identified by all 3 surgeon experts. The percentage of operative steps identified was high for each surgeon expert (96% for surgeon 1, 79% for surgeon 2, and 83% for surgeon 3). Of the 27 decision points, only 5 (19%) were identified by all 3 surgeon experts. The percentage of decision points identified varied by surgeon expert (78% for surgeon 1, 59% for surgeon 2, and 48% for surgeon 3). When asked to identify key teaching points, the surgeon experts were more likely to identify operative steps for junior residents (9 operative steps and 6 decision points) and decision points for senior residents (4 operative steps and 13 decision points) (P < .01)., Conclusions: CTA can deconstruct the essential operative steps and decision points associated with performing a laparoscopic appendectomy. These results provide a framework to identify key teaching principles to guide intraoperative instruction. These learning objectives could be used to guide resident level-appropriate teaching of an essential general surgery procedure., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)