DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving Surgical Outcomes Through Adoption of Evidence-Based Process Measures: Intervention Specific Or Associated with Overall Hospital Quality?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Improving Surgical Outcomes Through Adoption of Evidence-Based Process Measures: Intervention Specific Or Associated with Overall Hospital Quality? Improving surgical outcomes through adoption of evidence-based process measures: Intervention specific or associated with overall hospital quality? Benjamin S. Brooke, MD,a Robert A. Meguid, MD, MPH,a Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH,a,c Bruce A. Perler, MD, MBA,a Peter J. Pronovost, MD, PhD,b,c and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH,a Baltimore, MD Background. The Leapfrog Group aims to improve surgical outcomes through promoting hospital adoption of procedure-specific process measures, although it is unclear whether compliance reflects a hospital’s overall quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether implementation of Leapfrog’s standard for routine b-blockade was associated with reductions in mortality after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair alone versus other high-risk operations. Methods. Using a 2:1 matched case-control study design, hospitals that had not adopted the b-blockade standard (n = 72) were compared with hospitals that had implemented this Leapfrog standard (n = 36). Leapfrog survey data were linked to patient outcomes in the California OSHPD database from 2000 to 2005. Random-effects Poisson regression models were used to evaluate in-hospital mortality over time for patients undergoing AAA repair versus esophagectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, colectomy, gas- trectomy, and pulmonary lobectomy. Results. A total of 6,199 AAA repairs, 2,780 esophagectomies, 2,544 hepatectomies, 2,909 pancrea- tectomies, 57,795 colectomies, 6,267 gastrectomies, and 10,210 lobectomies were analyzed. AAA- associated mortality significantly declined in hospitals that adopted the b-blocker standard (relative risk [RR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24--0.97; P < .05). Implementation of this Leapfrog standard had no effect on reducing adjusted mortality rates for other high-risk operations, including esophagectomy (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.25--1.89), hepatectomy (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.32--4.29), pan- createctomy (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.28--2.02), colectomy (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.86--1.44), gastrectomy (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.57--2.43), and lobectomy (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.46--2.08) (all P > .05). Conclusion. Compliance with peri-operative b-blockade resulted in a significant reduction in mortality after open AAA repair over time, but it had no crossover effect on mortality associated with other high-risk operations in the same hospital. These data suggest that improvements in outcomes resulting from the adoption of evidence-based process measures are procedure specific and do not necessarily reflect overall hospital quality. (Surgery 2010;147:481-90.) From the Departments of Surgerya and Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine,b Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore; and Department of Health Policy and Management,c Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD AN ESTIMATED 50,000 IN-HOSPITAL DEATHS occur annu- peri-operative adverse events are known to be pre- ally in the United States among patients who have ventable with the reliable application of evidence- undergone operative procedures.1 Many of these based medicine (EBM) practices by hospitals and health care providers. This fact has been high- Supported by Grant 1KL2RR025006-01 from the National lighted by several reports released by the Institute Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the of Medicine over the past decade, which have pro- National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. jected that thousands of patient lives might be Accepted for publication October 7, 2009. saved if patients underwent operations at a hospi- tal that adheres to EBM.2,3 Reprint requests: Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Based on these findings, several nationwide Halsted 614, Baltimore, MD 22187-6681. E-mail: tpawlik1@ initiatives have been formed that aim to refer jhmi.edu. surgical patients selectively to hospitals that adhere 0039-6060/$ - see front matter to EBM practices. One of the largest such pro- Ó 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. grams is the Leapfrog Group Hospital Quality and doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.037 Patient Safety Initiative, which was started in 2000 SURGERY 481 482 Brooke et al Surgery April 2010 by a group of business and health care leaders.4 A number of hospitals surveyed. The Leapfrog data cornerstone of the Leapfrog program has been the are based on surveys sent to the Corporate Exec- promotion of evidence-based standards for high- utive Officer or head administrator of 337 acute- risk operations, including abdominal aortic care hospitals in urban regions of California, with aneurysm (AAA) repair, esophagectomy, pancre- the collected data representing self-reported infor- atic resection, coronary artery bypass grafting mation regarding hospital demographics and an- (CABG), aortic valve replacement, and bariatric nual compliance with each of the Leapfrog Group surgery. The Leapfrog standards include encourag- hospital quality and safety standards. A total of 212 ing patient referral to hospitals that meet defined targeted hospitals returned Leapfrog surveys and case volume thresholds, as well as giving incentives were available for review. for hospitals to promote implementation of evi- In all, 36 California hospitals were identified in dence-based process measures for specific proce- which a hospital policy for routine peri-operative b- dures.5 Although the benefits of meeting EBM blocker use during AAA repair was in place starting standards on surgical outcomes have been noted in 2003. To meet Leapfrog criteria for this process by several recent analyses, most hospitals do not measure, at least 80% of patients who underwent meet case volume standards and overall compli- elective AAA repair at a given hospital must have ance with the adoption of evidence-based process been on b-blocker therapy during their hospitali- measures remains low.5,6 zation as well as at the time of discharge. California It is well recognized that numerous barriers may hospitals that met this evidence-based standard limit or prevent health care organizations from were matched by total hospital admission volume adopting new evidence-based practices into hospi- (1:2) to 72 control hospitals that returned Leap- tal policy.7-9 Hospitals that overcome these obsta- frog surveys declaring noncompliance with routine cles may therefore have unique characteristics or b-blocker use. To maintain homogeneity, only institution-wide programs dedicated toward quality hospitals that used open AAA repair were identi- improvement. Indeed, the adoption of evidence- fied and used for the purpose of analyses. To based process measures may serve as a surrogate determine whether improvements in outcomes marker for a hospital’s commitment toward EBM among hospitals willing to adopt evidence-based and/or improving operative processes of care. process measures were procedure specific (eg, Prior studies have suggested that hospitals with b-blockade for AAA peri-operative outcomes) or low mortality rates for 1 operation tend to have reflective of hospital-wide quality improvements lower mortality rates for other operations based over time, the peri-operative mortality outcomes of on shared evidence-based processes of care.10 As 6 other high-risk operations were determined. such, we sought to determine whether improve- Specifically, the peri-operative outcomes of pa- ments in outcomes among hospitals willing to tients who underwent elective esophagectomy, adopt evidence-based process measures were spe- pancreatectomy, hepatectomy, colectomy, gastrec- cific for the procedures to which they apply or tomy, and pulmonary lobectomy in the same whether the adoption of such evidence-based mea- California hospitals were assessed. All data on sures are reflective of more global hospital-wide patients who underwent any of these elective improvements over time. To address this question, operative procedures at the identified hospitals we evaluated whether hospitals that adopted the were obtained from the California Office of Leapfrog evidence-based process measure for rou- Statewide Health Planning and Development tine b-blocker use during AAA repair also experi- (OSHPD) database for the years between 2000 enced improved outcomes over time for other and 2005. The data were then linked by OSHPD high-risk operations. Such information is impor- identification number to the Leapfrog Group tant for determining markers of hospital quality survey results. International Classification of and may help ensure that operative patients are Diseases, 9th Revision procedure codes were referred to centers with the best outcomes. used to identify open AAA repair (38.34, 38.36, 38.44, 38.64, 39.25, and 39.52), esopha- METHODS gectomy (42.40, 42.41, 42.42, and 43.99), pan- Hospital and patient data. Response data ob- createctomy (52.70, 52.51, 52.52, 52.53, 52.59, tained from the Leapfrog Group Hospital Quality and 55.26), hepatectomy (50.22 and 50.30), and Safety Surveys sent to California hospitals colectomy (45.7, 45.71, 45.72, 45.73, 45.74, annually between 2001 and 2005 were reviewed. 45.75, 45.76, 45.79, and 45.8), gastrectomy California was the first state-wide region to be (43.5, 43.6, 43.7, 43.8, 43.89, 43.9, and 43.99), targeted by Leapfrog, and it contains the largest and pulmonary lobectomy (32.3 and 32.4) Surgery Brooke et al 483 Volume 147, Number 4 procedures from the OSHPD database. The pro- cedure codes for endovascular AAA repair (39.71) and nonelective operations were excluded from analyses. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved this study. Study design. Hospital characteristics and in- hospital mortality for all operative procedures were compared over consecutive time periods as follows: (1) the 3-year period (2000--2002) prior to the release of the Leapfrog Group process measure standard for routine b-blocker use; and (2) the 3-year period (2003--2005) after California hospitals were either compliant (treatment group) or non- b compliant (control group) with the -blocker Fig 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pancreaticoduodenectomy with Preservation of Gastric Tube Blood
    CASE REPORT – OPEN ACCESS International Journal of Surgery Case Reports 5 (2014) 746–749 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Surgery Case Reports j ournal homepage: www.casereports.com Pancreaticoduodenectomy with preservation of gastric tube blood flow after esophagectomy: Report of a case ∗ Sho Okimoto, Tsuyoshi Kobayashi , Shintaro Kuroda, Hiroyuki Tahara, Masahiro Ohira, Kentaro Ide, Kohei Ishiyama, Hirotaka Tashiro, Hideki Ohdan Department of Gastroenterological and Transplant Surgery, Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 734-8551, 1-2-3, Kasumi, Hiroshima, Japan a r a t b i c l e i n f o s t r a c t Article history: INTRODUCTION: During pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) is commonly Received 10 July 2014 divided. In this study, we described the clinical features of PD in which the GDA was preserved in order Received in revised form 5 August 2014 to avoid gastric tube ischemia in a patient who had previously undergone esophagectomy. Accepted 7 August 2014 PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 70-year-old man had previously undergone esophagectomy. Esophagectomy Available online 28 August 2014 and gastric tube reconstruction were performed 10 years earlier due to superior thoracic esophageal can- cer. The patient was referred to our hospital for the treatment of obstructive jaundice and was diagnosed Keywords: with middle bile duct cancer. We performed PD and preserved the GDA. The postoperative course was Bile duct cancer Pancreaticoduodenectomy uneventful, and the gastric tube continued functioning well. DISCUSSION: In a patient with a prior esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction, the blood flow to Gastroduodenal artery Esophagectomy the gastric tube is supplied only by the GDA via the right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA).
    [Show full text]
  • About Liver Resection
    ABOUT LIVER RESECTION Surgical removal of part of the liver A guide for patients and relatives This booklet has been written to provide information about the operation called a liver resection. This is a major operation and involves removal of a part of the liver. Information about the benefits and risks will help you make an informed decision about the operation. It is important to remember that each person is different. This booklet cannot replace the professional advice and expertise of a doctor who is familiar with your condition. If you have questions that this booklet does not cover, please discuss them with your surgeon or cancer nurse specialist. page 2 What is the liver? The liver is a large organ which lies on the right side of the upper abdomen, under the rib cage. It has many functions related to body metabolism (chemical processes within the body) and is very important to health. One of its functions is to produce yellow-green fluid called bile. Bile flows down a tube called the bile duct to the intestine, where it mixes with food and helps digestion. The gall bladder is a small sac attached to the side of the bile duct. The gall bladder stores excess bile and pushes it down the bile duct in to the intestine, ready for when it is needed for digestion. The liver has right and left lobes (sections). An artery (hepatic artery) and a vein (portal vein) carry blood to the liver. Blood from the liver flows through the hepatic veins back to the heart.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy: Thoracic Stage in Prone Position
    DOI: 10.1590/0100-69912017005002 Original Article Thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy: thoracic stage in prone position Esofagectomia vídeo-tóraco-laparoscópica com tempo torácico em posição pronada CARLOS BERNARDO COLA, TCBC-RJ1,2, FLÁVIO DUARTE SABINO, TCBC-RJ1, CARLOS EDUARDO PINTO, TCBC-RJ1, MARIA RIBEIRO MORARD, TCBC-RJ2, PEDRO PORTARI FILHO, TCBC-RJ2, TEREZA GUEDES1. ABSTRACT Objective: to analyze the National Cancer Institute Abdominopelvic Division (INCA / MS/HC I) initial experience with thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with thoracic stage in prone position. Methods: we studied 19 consecutive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomies from may 2012 to august 2014, including ten patients with squamous cells carcinoma (five of the middle third and five of the lower third) and nine cases of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (six Siewert I and three Siewert II). All procedures were initiated by the prone thoracic stage. Results: There were minimal blood loss, optimal mediastinal visualization, oncological radicality and no conversions. Surgical morbidity was 42 %, most being minor complications (58% Clavien I or II), with few related to the technique. The most common complica- tion was cervical anastomotic leak (37%), with a low anastomotic stricture rate (two stenosis: 10.53%). We had one (5.3%) surgical related death, due to a gastric tube`s mediastinal leak, treated by open reoperation and neck diversion. The median Intensive Care Unit stay and hospital stay were two and 12 days, respectively. The mean thoracoscopic stage duration was 77 min. Thirteen patients received neoadju- vant treatment (five squamous cells carcinoma and eight gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas). The average lymph node sample had 16.4 lymph nodes per patient and 22.67 when separately analyzing patients without neoadjuvant treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Liver Resections Combined with Closure of Loop Ileostomies: a Retrospective Analysis
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation HPB Surgery Volume 2008, Article ID 501397, 5 pages doi:10.1155/2008/501397 Research Article Liver Resections Combined with Closure of Loop Ileostomies: A Retrospective Analysis Jeffrey T. Lordan, Angela T. Riga, and Nariman D. Karanjia Regional Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Unit for Surrey and Sussex, The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK Correspondence should be addressed to Jeffrey T. Lordan, dr [email protected] Received 6 August 2008; Accepted 30 October 2008 Recommended by Olivier Farges Background. The management of patients with colorectal liver metastases and loop ileostomies remains controversial. This study was performed to assess the outcome of combined liver resection and loop ileostomy closure. Methods. Analysis of prospectively collected perioperative data, including morbidity and mortality, of 283 consecutive hepatectomies for colorectal liver metastases was undertaken. Consecutive liver resections were performed from 1996 to 2006 in one centre by a single surgeon (NDK). Fourteen of these patients had combined liver resection and ileostomy closure. Case-matched analysis was undertaken. Results.Six(2.2%) patients died in the hepatectomy only group and none died in the combined group. There was no difference in operative blood loss between the two groups (0.09). Perioperative morbidity was 36% in the combined group and 23% in the hepatectomy alone group (P = 0.33). Mean hospital stay was 14 days in the combined group and 11 days in the hepatectomy only group (P = 0.046). Case-matched analysis showed a significant increase in hospital stay (P = 0.03) and complications (P = 0.049) in the combined group.
    [Show full text]
  • Leapfrog Hospital Survey Hard Copy
    Leapfrog Hospital Survey Hard Copy QUESTIONS & REPORTING PERIODS ENDNOTES MEASURE SPECIFICATIONS FAQS Table of Contents Welcome to the 2016 Leapfrog Hospital Survey........................................................................................... 6 Important Notes about the 2016 Survey ............................................................................................ 6 Overview of the 2016 Leapfrog Hospital Survey ................................................................................ 7 Pre-Submission Checklist .................................................................................................................. 9 Instructions for Submitting a Leapfrog Hospital Survey ................................................................... 10 Helpful Tips for Verifying Submission ......................................................................................... 11 Tips for updating or correcting a previously submitted Leapfrog Hospital Survey ...................... 11 Deadlines ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Deadlines for the 2016 Leapfrog Hospital Survey ...................................................................... 13 Deadlines Related to the Hospital Safety Score ......................................................................... 13 Technical Assistance.......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open, Hybrid Or Total Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy; a Comprehensive Review Based on a Systematic Literature Search
    10 Review Article Page 1 of 10 Open, hybrid or total minimally invasive esophagectomy; a comprehensive review based on a systematic literature search William Jebril1,2, Fredrik Klevebro1,2, Ioannis Rouvelas1,2, Magnus Nilsson1,2 1Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; 2Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Contributions: (I) Conception and design: All authors; (II) Administrative support: None; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: None; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: None; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: W Jebril; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors. Correspondence to: Prof. Magnus Nilsson. Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, C177, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected]. Abstract: Esophagectomy is the backbone of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer with curative intention and the procedure is associated with significant risk for postoperative complications and mortality. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced with the aim to reduce morbidity and mortality. This review article has the objective to give an overview of the currently available evidence concerning the various techniques of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and their outcomes. A structured search of randomized controlled trials and large cohort studies published in the medical literature, comparing open and MIE techniques, was performed. Relevant studies were summarized, discussed and included in a comprehensive review based on the systematic literature search. MIE can be performed in various ways ranging from hybrid techniques to a totally minimally invasive approach. Increasingly also robotic surgical systems are being used. The published studies are somewhat ambiguous.
    [Show full text]
  • ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS Specification Enhanced Version 5.0
    AHRQ Quality Indicators™ (AHRQ QI™) ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS Specification Enhanced Version 5.0 Inpatient Quality Indicators #1 (IQI #1) Esophageal Resection Volume October 2015 Provider-Level Indicator Type of Score: Volume Prepared by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov AHRQ QI™ ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10‐CM/PCS Specification Enhanced Version 5.0 2 of 24 IQI #1 Esophageal Resection Volume www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov IQI #1 Esophageal Resection Volume DESCRIPTION The number of hospital discharges with a procedure for esophageal resection or gastrectomy and esophageal cancer for patients 18 years and older or obstetric patients. October 2015 AHRQ QI™ ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10‐CM/PCS Specification Enhanced Version 5.0 3 of 24 IQI #1 Esophageal Resection Volume www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov IQI #1 Esophageal Resection Volume NUMERATOR Discharges, for patients ages 18 years and older or MDC 14 (pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium), with either: • any-listed ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-PCS procedure codes for esophageal resection; or • any-listed ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-PCS procedure codes for gastrectomy and any-listed ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for esophageal cancer. Esophageal resection procedure codes: (PRESOPP) ICD-9-CM Description ICD-10 PCS Description 424 ESOPHAGECTOMY 0D11074 Bypass Upper Esophagus to Cutaneous with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Open Approach 4240 ESOPHAGECTOMY NOS 0D11076 Bypass Upper Esophagus to Stomach
    [Show full text]
  • Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Benign Disease
    Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Benign Disease Blair A. Jobe, MD KEYWORDS Minimally invasive esophagectomy Open esophagectomy Benign conditions Complications KEY POINTS Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) can provide patients with reduced morbidity and a rapid recovery in the treatment of benign conditions. There are few data examining the long-term outcomes of MIE, specifically in the context of benign disease. At present, MIE should be performed in centers with experience in advanced minimally invasive esophageal surgery, and it requires a team approach. Multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials will be required to determine the superiority of MIE compared with open esophagectomy. INTRODUCTION With the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1989, the practice of general surgery was transformed. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy provided the platform for widespread innovation and the ultimate adoption of complex minimal access proce- dures.1 This transformation in surgery has been coupled with the development of advanced surgical instrumentation and applied for more complicated disease pro- cesses. Since Dallemange described the first laparoscopic fundoplication in 1991,2 esophageal surgeons have uniformly incorporated laparoscopic approaches into practice. Clinical series have demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease3–5 and achalasia6,7 shows efficacy, with decreased recovery times compared with open approaches. Esophagectomy is often performed in
    [Show full text]
  • 793 H. Chen (Ed.), Illustrative Handbook of General Surgery, DOI
    Index A anesthetization , 763 Abdominoperineal resection incision , 763, 764 (APR) informed consent , 762 anesthesia , 432–433 packing abscess cavity , indications , 430–431 764, 765 patient positioning , 432 potential risks, disclosure post-operative care , 446 of , 762 pre-operative imaging and protective equipment , 762 procedures , 431–432 skin preparation , 763 procedure A C C . See Adrenocortical cancer anococcygeal ligament , (ACC) 441, 442 Achalasia . See Esophageal anterior dissection plane , achalasia 442, 444 Adjustable gastric banding elliptical incision , 441 (AGB) , 237, 244–245 perineal incision , 442, 445 Adrenalectomy robotic , 445–446 indications for , 62 Abscess drainage laparoscopic (see anesthesia , 761–762 (Laparoscopic antibiotic therapy , 759 adrenalectomy) ) complications , 766 open (see (Open indications , 760 adrenalectomy) ) patient positioning , 761 Adrenal incidentaloma , 63 post-procedure Adrenocortical cancer (ACC) instructions , 766 laparoscopic adrenalectomy pre-procedure evaluation , (see (Laparoscopic 760–761 adrenalectomy) ) procedure open adrenalectomy (see abscess cavity, loculations (Open of , 764, 765 adrenalectomy) ) H. Chen (ed.), Illustrative Handbook of General Surgery, 793 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24557-7, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 794 Index A G B . See Adjustable gastric Antirefl ux procedure (ARP) , 194 banding (AGB) Dor fundoplication Aldosterone producing advantages of , 200 adenoma , 71 completion of , 201–202 American College of creation of , 200–201 Radiologists
    [Show full text]
  • Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy
    AME Surgery Series 6A006 6A006 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Invasive Minimally Editors: Zhigang Li Toni Lerut Suzanne S. Gisbertz Associate Editors: Luigi Bonavina Harushi Osugi Sook Whan Sung Bin Li www.amegroups.com Editors: Zhigang Li Suzanne S. Gisbertz Lerut Toni AME Surgery Series 6A006 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Editors: Zhigang Li Toni Lerut Suzanne S. Gisbertz Associate Editors: Luigi Bonavina Harushi Osugi Sook Whan Sung Bin Li AME Publishing Company Room C 16F, Kings Wing Plaza 1, NO. 3 on Kwan Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong Information on this title: www.amegroups.com For more information, contact [email protected] Copyright © AME Publishing Company. All rights reserved. This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of AME Publishing Company. First published in 2018 Printed in China by AME Publishing Company Editors: Zhigang Li, Toni Lerut, Suzanne S. Gisbertz Cover Image Illustrator: Anthony P. Yim, HongKong, China Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (Hard Cover) ISBN 978-988-79496-4-0 AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong AME Publishing Company has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. The advice and opinions expressed in this book are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or practices of the publisher. No representation is made by the publisher about the suitability of the information contained in this book, and there is no consent, endorsement or recommendation provided by the publisher, express or implied, with regard to its contents.
    [Show full text]
  • Successful Resection of Esophageal Cancer with Right Aortic Arch by Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: a Case Report
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH 33: 1635-1640 (2013) Successful Resection of Esophageal Cancer with Right Aortic Arch by Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Case Report NAOSHI KUBO1, MASAICHI OHIRA1, TOMOHIRO LEE1, KATSUNOBU SAKURAI1, TAKAHIRO TOYOKAWA1, HIROAKI TANAKA1, KAZUYA MUGURUMA1, KENJIRO KIMURA1, HISASHI NAGAHARA1, EIJI NODA1, RYOSUKE AMANO1, HIROSHI OHTANI1, YOSHITO YAMASHITA2, MASAKAZU YASHIRO1, KIYOSHI MAEDA1 and KOSEI HIRAKAWA1 1Department of Surgical Oncology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan; 2Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan Abstract. The right aortic arch (RAA) forms a vascular to understand the anatomy of these systems in order to ring, encircling both the esophagus and trachea. We herein safely perform an operation. Recently, video-assisted report a case of thoracic esophageal cancer with RAA thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been applied in successfully resected using video-assited thoracoscopic esophagectomy and has been reported to deliver better surgery (VATS). A 64-year-old man who presented with a surgical outcomes. VATS for patients with esophageal complaint of abdominal pain, was admitted to our hospital. cancer has several advantages, such as a good surgical view Further examinations revealed gall stones and multiple by means of visual enlargement, and less trauma to the superficial esophageal carcinomas. Three-dimensional thoracic wall, compared with conventional open computed tomographic images showed RAA and aortic thoracotomy. We herein report a case of thoracic diverticulum. The trachea and esophagus were completely esophageal cancer with RAA, successfully resected using encircled by the RAA, the aortic diverticulum and the VATS. All previously reported cases with esophageal cancer pulmonary artery. We successfully and safely performed associated with RAA underwent open esophagectomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Aspects of Orthotopic Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Technical Aspects of Orthotopic Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma a a,b, Lung-Yi Lee, MD , David P. Foley, MD * KEYWORDS Liver transplantation Surgery Hepatocellular carcinoma Piggyback technique Portal vein thrombosis KEY POINTS In the majority of cases, patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who undergo liver transplantation are transplanted based on their higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception score and not their physiologic MELD score; this usually results in fewer physiologic derangements during liver transplantation. Patients who have previously undergone locoregional therapy or liver resection for HCC can develop significant perihepatic adhesions that increase the complexity of the hepa- tectomy during transplant. Implantation strategy of the inferior vena cava (IVC) during liver transplant may need to be modified based on location of previously treated HCC. Patients who undergo transarterial chemoembolization for pretransplant HCC therapy may have higher rates of hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplant; therefore, aorto- hepatic bypass grafting with donor iliac artery may be required for arterial in flow to the liver allograft. Patients with portal vein (PV) thrombosis with a bland thrombus and a patent superior mesenteric vein (SMV) can undergo successful liver transplant through either PV throm- bectomy and standard end-to-end PV-PV anastomosis, or the use of SMV-PV bypass graft with donor iliac vein. a Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Center, H4/766, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3284, USA; b Veterans Administration Surgical Services, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, 2500 Overlook Terrace, Madison, WI 53705, USA * Corresponding author.
    [Show full text]