Search

Your search keyword '"Jin, Yao"' showing total 260 results
Start Over Author "Jin, Yao" Publisher elsevier b.v.
260 results on '"Jin, Yao"'

32. Changing trends in the clinicopathological features, practices and outcomes in the surgical management for cystic lesions of the pancreas and impact of the international guidelines: Single institution experience with 462 cases between 1995-2018

Author

Goh, Brian K.P., Park, Rachel H.S., Koh, Ye-Xin, Teo, Jin-Yao, Tan, Ek-Khoon, Cheow, Peng-Chung, Thng, Choon-Hua, Low, Albert S., Tan, Damien M., Chow, Pierce K.H., Chan, Chung-Yip, Chung, Alexander Y.F., and Ooi, London L.P.J.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

33. Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Author

Koh, Ye Xin, Zhao, Yun, Tan, Ivan En-Howe, Tan, Hwee Leong, Chua, Darren Weiquan, Loh, Wei-Liang, Tan, Ek Khoon, Teo, Jin Yao, Au, Marianne Kit Har, and Goh, Brian Kim Poh

Abstract

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference −2,529.84, 95% credible intervals −4,192.69 to −884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference −3,363.37, 95% credible intervals −5,629.24 to −1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. The impact of hospital volume on liver resection: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Author

Koh, Ye Xin, Zhao, Yun, Tan, Ivan En-Howe, Tan, Hwee Leong, Chua, Darren Weiquan, Loh, Wei-Liang, Tan, Ek Khoon, Teo, Jin Yao, Au, Marianne Kit Har, and Goh, Brian Kim Poh

Abstract

This study aims to compare the outcomes of high-volume, medium-volume, and low-volume hospitals performing hepatic resections using a network meta-analysis. A literature search until June 2023 was conducted across major databases to identify studies comparing outcomes in high-volume, medium-volume, and low-volume hospitals for liver resection. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area values, odds ratio, and mean difference with 95% credible intervals were reported for postoperative mortality, failure-to-rescue, morbidity, length of stay, and hospital costs. Twenty studies comprising 248,707 patients undergoing liver resection were included. For the primary mortality outcome, overall and subgroup analyses were performed: group I: high-volume = 5 to 20 resections/year; group II: high-volume = 21 to 49 resections/year; group III: high-volume ≥50 resections/year. Results demonstrated a significant association between hospital volume and mortality (overall—high-volume versus medium-volume: odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.49–0.87; high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.52, 95% credible interval 0.41–0.65; group I—high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.34, 95% credible interval 0.22–0.50; medium-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.56, 95% credible interval 0.33–0.92; group II—high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.45–0.91), as well as length of stay (high-volume versus low-volume: mean difference –1.24, 95% credible interval –2.07 to –0.41), favoring high-volume hospitals. No significant difference was observed in failure-to-rescue, morbidity, or hospital costs across the 3 groups. This study supports a positive relationship between hospital volume and surgical outcomes in liver resection. Patients from high-volume hospitals experience superior outcomes in terms of lower postoperative mortality and shorter lengths of stay than medium-volume and low-volume hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results