DOCSLIB.ORG

Associated Gastrointestinal Perforations: a Single-Center Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Associated Gastrointestinal Perforations: a Single-Center Experience Esophagogastroduodenoscopy- associated gastrointestinal perforations: A single-center experience Amit Merchea, MD,a Daniel C. Cullinane, MD,a Mark D. Sawyer, MD,a Corey W. Iqbal, MD,a Todd H. Baron, MD,b Dennis Wigle, MD,a Michael G. Sarr, MD,a and Martin D. Zielinski, MD,a Rochester, MN Background. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly used in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Our aim was to define the risk of perforation associated with EGD and identify patients who required operative intervention. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 72 patients from our institution plus 5 transferred patients who sustained EGD-associated perforations from January 1996 through July 2008. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, endoscopic ultrasonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, transtho- racic echocardiography, and concurrent colonoscopy procedures were excluded. Results. Perforations in 72 of 217,507 EGD procedures were identified (incidence, 0.033%); 124,844 EGDs included an interventional procedure and 92,663 were examination only. The incidence of perforation was similar whether an interventional procedure was performed or not (0.040% vs 0.029%; P = .181). The esophagus was injured most commonly (51%), followed by the duodenum (32%), jejunum (6%), stomach (3%), and common bile duct (3%). Overall mortality after perfora- tion was 17% with a morbidity rate of 40%. Thirty-eight patients (49%) were initially treated non- operatively, 7 of whom (18%) failed nonoperative management. The only factors we could determine that were associated with failure were free fluid or contrast extravasation on computed tomography (75% vs 23% [P < .005] and 33% vs 0% [P = .047], respectively). The morbidity of failures was equivalent to those who underwent initial operative management (63% vs 61%; P = .917), with mortality seeming to be greater (43% vs 21%; P = .09). Conclusion. EGD is safe in the majority of patients; however, iatrogenic perforation is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Nonoperative management of GI perforation can be successful if there is no evidence of contrast extravasation or free fluid on radiographic studies. If nonoperative management fails, the outcomes may be worse than those treated initially with operative repair. (Surgery 2010;148:876-82.) From the Departments of Surgerya and Medicine,b Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN ESOPHAGOGASTRODUODENOSCOPY (EGD) is a widely esophagus has previously been reported at our in- used tool in the diagnosis and treatment of upper stitution to range between 0.2% and 0.4%.3,4 As gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The utility of this the use of rigid endoscopy waned and flexible en- procedure has seen a steady increase in its use, doscopy became more pervasive, the perforation and while considered a safe procedure, complica- rate improved to 0.008--0.11%.1,2,5-8 Although tions can occur.1,2 The perforation rate of the rare, perforation secondary to EGD is associated with substantive morbidity.2,9,10 Patients presenting after perforation with peritonitis or septic shock Presented in part at the Central Surgical Association Annual Meeting, March 13, 2010, Chicago, Illinois. would generally be managed operatively; however, there may be a subset of patients in whom a non- Reprint requests: Martin D. Zielinski, MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care and General Surgery, The Mayo Clinic, 200 First operative approach may be employed. Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: zielinski.martin@ We aimed to define the risk of GI perforation mayo.edu. associated with EGD at a single, large-volume, 0039-6060/$ - see front matter tertiary care center and to identify the risk factors Ó 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. that, if present, would require operative interven- doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.010 tion. We hypothesized that the incidence of 876 SURGERY Surgery Merchea et al 877 Volume 148, Number 4 Procedures Performed (January 1996 - December 2007) Table I. Distribution of EGD procedures and 21500 incidence of perforation, January 1996--July 2008 19500 Incidence of 17500 Procedure Number perforation (%) 15500 Total EGDs performed 217,507 0.03 13500 Examination only 92,663 0.03 11500 Interventional procedure 124,844 0.04 Biopsy 108,053 9500 Dilatation 10,455 7500 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coagulation/sclerotherapy 6,336 Year EGD, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Figure. Number of EGD procedures performed, January 1996--December 2007. Table II. Distribution of perforations by location EGD-associated GI perforation was greater if an within the gastrointestinal tract, January 1996--July interventional procedure was performed (biopsy, 2008 dilatation, coagulation, or sclerotherapy) and Proportion that patients without contrast extravasation on Location n of total (%) radiographic studies can be safely managed Esophagus 39 51 nonoperatively. Cervical 9 Proximal thoracic 3 METHODS Distal thoracic 15 Institutional review board approval was ob- Gastroesophageal junction 10 tained. The procedure database at our institution Unknown 2 was searched to identify all patients undergoing Stomach 2 3 EGD from January 1996 through July 2008 exclu- Duodenum 25 32 Jejunum 5 6 sive of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, Common bile duct 2 3 endoscopic ultrasonography, endoscopic retro- Unknown 4 5 grade cholangiopancreatography, transthoracic Total 77 100 echocardiography, and concurrent colonoscopy procedures. This subset was further narrowed down by 2 methods: (1) all patients diagnosed Indications for exploration in those patients man- with ‘‘perforation’’ within 7 days of the EGD to aged nonoperatively included worsening clinical capture nonoperative management; and (2) those status, sepsis, and increased pain. Nonoperative with a perforation who underwent laparotomy, failure was defined as operative intervention or laparoscopy, thoracotomy, thoracoscopy, or neck death from an EGD-associated perforation compli- exploration within the same time frame. The cation. Overall survival was calculated from the database search yielded 77 patients with iatrogenic date of diagnosis of perforation to the date of perforation. Data were collected regarding indica- death from all causes, including postoperative tions, procedures performed, diagnostic modali- deaths. Univariate analysis of categorical variables ties, management, and overall outcomes. was performed using Pearson’s Chi-square test or Endoscopy reports were reviewed to determine Fisher’s exact test, as indicated. Continuous varia- procedural details, difficulty, complicated anatomy bles were analyzed by Student t test or Wilcoxon (from surgical alteration or abnormal anatomic rank sum test and are presented as mean or me- variant), and extent of intervention. An interven- dian as indicated (range). All tests were 2 sided tion was defined as any procedure in addition to with significance determined at P < .05. Statistical simple EGD and included dilatation, coagulation, analysis was performed utilizing JMP (Version 7; sclerotherapy, or any manipulation of normal tis- SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). sue planes (ie, biopsy). Postperforation courses were reviewed to determine outcomes. Nonopera- RESULTS tive management consisted of nil per os status, We performed 217,507 EGD procedures be- broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics, and tween January 1996 and July 2008. The number percutaneous drainage of abscesses if present. of EGDs performed increased steadily from 12,183 878 Merchea et al Surgery October 2010 Table III. Complication by location of perforation within the GI tract, January 1996--July 2008 Wound Anastomotic EC MI/ Anoxic Death Pneumonia infection Abscess ARF leak fistula PE arrhythmia Obstruction brain injury Other Esophagus 4 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 Stomach 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duodenum 7 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 Jejunum 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Common 00 0100 000 0 01 bile duct Unknown 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in 1996 to >19,000 in 2008 (Figure). We included secondary to massive upper GI hemorrhage. Of 72 patients from our institution and 5 patients the 25 duodenal perforations, 12 (48%) were transferred to our institution (46 women, 31 difficult and 8 of these 12 perforations were noted men), with a median age of 70 years (range, 20-- to have complicated anatomy. Twenty-six of 39 95) who had an EGD-associated GI perforation. (67%) esophageal perforations and 19 of 25 The overall incidence of perforation for EGDs (76%) duodenal perforations underwent an inter- performed at our institution was 0.03%. Of these vention with biopsy being the most frequent procedures, 124,844 EGDs (57%) included an (11 patients and 8 patients, respectively). Of all intervention (biopsy, dilatation, coagulation, perforated patients, 7 had altered surgical anatomy and/or sclerotherapy). EGD with biopsy was the resulting in 3 jejunal perforations and a common most frequent intervention conducted (n = bile duct perforation secondary to misinterpreta- 108,053; 57%). The incidence of perforation was tion of a hepaticojejunostomy as a small bowel similar whether or not an interventional proce- stricture that was dilated. A second perforation of dure was performed (0.04% vs 0.03%; P = .181; the common bile duct occurred in a patient who Table I). The most common indication for EGD in underwent emergent EGD owing to massive GI perforated patients was evaluation of a possible up- bleeding 24 hours after endoscopic retrograde per GI cancer (26%) followed by dysphagia (22%). cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy.
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]
  • 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]
  • Chapter 1 History of Laparoscopic Surgery
    Chapter 1 History of Laparoscopic Surgery Kiyokazu Nakajima, Jeffrey W. Milsom, and Bartholomäus Böhm Although laparoscopic surgery has transformed surgery only in the past two decades, its evolution is only the natural byproduct of the medical doctor’s curiosity to directly visualize and treat surgical dis- eases. The earliest known attempts to look inside the living human body date from 460 to 375 BC, from the Kos school of medicine led by Hippocrates in Greece.1,2 They described a rectal examination using a speculum remarkably similar to the instruments we use today. Similar specula were discovered in the ruins of Pompeii (70 AD) that were used to examine the vagina, the cervix, and the rectum, and obtain an inside view of the nose and ear.1 The Babylonian Talmud written in 500 AD described a lead siphon, named “Siphophert,” with a mouthpiece, which was bent inward and held a mechul (wooden drain).1,3 The apparatus was introduced into the vagina and was used to differentiate between vaginal and uterine bleeding. During these early years ambient light was used. The term “endoscopein” is attributed to Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980–1037 AD) of Persia, although an Arabian physician, Albulassim (912–1013 AD), who placed a mirror in front of the exposed vagina, was the fi rst to use refl ected light as a source of illumination for an endoscopic examination. Giulio Caesare Aranzi in Venice (1530–1589) developed the fi rst endoscopic light in 1587. He used the Benedictine monk Don Panuce’s principle of the “camera obscura” for medical purposes – the
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Procedure Offers a Less Invasive Alternative to Colectomy
    The better way to get better Hybrid procedure offers a less invasive alternative to colectomy Insufflation gas provides important advantage The colonoscopy-laparoscopy procedure is made possible through the combined skills of the gastroenterologist and laparoscopic surgeon, and the use of CO2 rather than ambient air for insufflation — the introduction of gas into the colon to improve visibility. CO2 is more quickly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract and results in less bowel distension, giving the laparoscopic surgeon a better field of vision within the abdominal cavity. © Copyright Olympus. Used with permission. “Some patients who would have required a bowel resection can instead benefit from this A new, minimally invasive procedure that is a hybrid of colonoscopy and less invasive procedure. We’re laparoscopy is proving to be a safe and effective alternative to open colectomy using this combined technique (removal of part of the colon) for patients with benign colon polyps that are as a way for patients to avoid colectomy,” explains James not removable endoscopically. Yoo, M.D., a colorectal surgeon Patients who undergo this hybrid procedure experience less pain and often go at UCLA. “This procedure home after only one or two days. Scarring and wound complications are minimal involves tiny incisions for the as the laparoscopic surgeon makes only small, keyhole incisions in the abdomen laparoscopic instruments and patients stay in the hospital only rather than the long incision characteristic of a traditional colectomy. a day or two.” WWW.UCLAHEALTH.ORG 1-800-UCLA-MD1 (1-800-825-2631) Who can benefit from the procedure? Participating When a routine colonoscopy reveals polyps, they are usually removed at the Physicians time of the procedure as a precaution against their progression to cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Laparoscopic Sentinel Node Mapping for Colorectal Cancer Using Infrared Ray Laparoscopy
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH 26: 2307-2312 (2006) Laparoscopic Sentinel Node Mapping for Colorectal Cancer Using Infrared Ray Laparoscopy KOICHI NAGATA1, SHUNGO ENDO1, EIJI HIDAKA1, JUN-ICHI TANAKA1, SHIN-EI KUDO1 and AKIRA SHIOKAWA2 1Digestive Disease Center and 2Pathology Section, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama 224-8503, Japan Abstract. Background: Sentinel lymph node (SN) mapping colectomy (LAC). SNs were mapped by the submucosal by dye injection on conventional laparoscopy (CL) is often injection of dye on intra-operative colonoscopy, or by the precluded by the presence of mesenteric adipose tissue in use of a spinal needle and percutaneous subserosal injection patients with colorectal cancer. SN mapping on CL was of dye at a premarked site (pre-operative tattooing of compared with that on infrared ray laparoscopy (IRL) during polypectomy site with carbon). However, our experience laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC). Patients and indicates that laparoscopic SN mapping by dye injection is Methods: Forty-eight patients with colorectal cancer who technically difficult because injection of the dye into the underwent LAC were enrolled. The tumor was identified by colon wall during LAC is cumbersome. Submucosal intra-operative fluoroscopy with marking clips. The tumor injection of dye on intra-operative colonoscopy makes LAC was stained intra-operatively by peritumoral injection of difficult and problematic. Distension of the small intestine indocyanine green dye. SNs were observed by CL and by IRL. with air on colonoscopy interferes with the operative field Results: In all 48 patients, dye injection and tumor and precludes laparoscopic procedures. Moreover, intra- localization during LAC were successful. The identification operative colonoscopic examinations require considerable of SNs on IRL was approximately five times better than that time, especially in patients with right-sided colon cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Operative Laparoscopy
    Operative Laparoscopy Technique Procedure involves the placement of a laparoscope (special telescope with a video camera attached) into the abdomen at the belly button. The pelvis including the uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, bladder and appendix are all visualized to determine the source of the patient's problem. The treatment necessary is determined based upon what the surgeon sees during this exam. Potential treatments include ovarian cyst removal, ovarian removal, excision or destruction of endometriosis, and removal of scar tissue. Incisions 3-4 small incisions (less than one inch) are made on the abdomen for this procedure. Operative Time Operative times vary greatly depending on the findings at the time of surgery. Your surgeon will proceed with safety as his/her first priority. Average times range from 45-90 minutes. Anesthesia General anesthesia Preoperative Care Nothing by mouth after midnight The procedure is usually scheduled immediately after your menstrual period. Hospital Stay Day surgery or 23 hour observation Postoperative Care These guidelines are intended to give you a general idea of your postoperative course. Since every patient is unique and has a unique procedure, your recovery may differ. You will be prescribed both an anti-inflammatory and a narcotic pain medicine for postoperative use. We recommend that anti-inflammatory medications, such as ibuprofen, naproxen, etc., be used on a scheduled (regular) basis and that narcotic pain medicine be utilized on an "as needed" basis. Driving is allowed after your procedure only when you do not require the narcotic pain medicine to manage your pain. Patients may return to work in 2-3 days following the procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure Coding in ICD-9-CM and ICD- 10-PCS
    Procedure Coding in ICD-9-CM and ICD- 10-PCS ICD-9-CM Volume 3 Procedures are classified in volume 3 of ICD-9-CM, and this section includes both an Alphabetic Index and a Tabular List. This volume follows the same format, organization and conventions as the classification of diseases in volumes 1 and 2. ICD-10-PCS ICD-10-PCS will replace volume 3 of ICD-9-CM. Unlike ICD-10-CM for diagnoses, which is similar in structure and format as the ICD-9-CM volumes 1 and 2, ICD-10-PCS is a completely different system. ICD-10-PCS has a multiaxial seven-character alphanumeric code structure providing unique codes for procedures. The table below gives a brief side-by-side comparison of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-PCS. ICD-9-CM Volume3 ICD-10-PCS Follows ICD structure (designed for diagnosis Designed and developed to meet healthcare coding) needs for a procedure code system Codes available as a fixed or finite set in list form Codes constructed from flexible code components (values) using tables Codes are numeric Codes are alphanumeric Codes are 3-4 digits long All codes are seven characters long ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-PCS are used to code only hospital inpatient procedures. Hospital outpatient departments, other ambulatory facilities, and physician practices are required to use CPT and HCPCS to report procedures. ICD-9-CM Conventions in Volume 3 Code Also In volume 3, the phrase “code also” is a reminder to code additional procedures only when they have actually been performed.
    [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]
  • The Costs and Benefits of Moving to the ICD-10 Code Sets
    CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CIVIL JUSTICE service of the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE 6 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS POPULATION AND AGING The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY organization providing objective analysis and effective SUBSTANCE ABUSE solutions that address the challenges facing the public TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY and private sectors around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Science and Technology View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discus- sions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research profes- sionals, and supporting documentation;
    [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]