We have located links that may give you full text access.
Length of stay by uncomplicated diabetes bariatric surgery patients: A laparoscopic adjustable banding versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2018 November 14
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVE: Bariatric surgery is an effective procedure for morbidly obese patients when all else fails. The purpose of this study was to compare the hospital length of stay (LOS) for two surgical procedures, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).
METHODS: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009 to 2014. Patients who received bariatric surgery as indicated by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were selected (N = 4001). Cases were limited to uncomplicated diabetic patients. Differences in the odds of long vs short (2< and ≥2) stay for a patient receiving LSG were compared with LAGB while adjusting for hospital volume, hospital size, patient age, gender, ethnicity, season, and year using logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The odds for LSG (odds ratio [OR] = 0.100, 0.066-0.150, P < 0.001) patients for long LOS are lower when compared with LAGB. In the stratified logistic regression model, both male (OR = 0.157, 0.074-0.333, P < 0.001) and female (OR = 0.077, 0.046-0.127, P < 0.001) had reduced odds of extended LOS for LSG. Discharged patients in the year 2012 (OR = 0.660, 0.536-0.813, P < 0.001) had decreased odds of having a longer LOS when compared with the year 2014. Both government, nonfederal (OR = 0.452, 0.251-0.816, P = 0.008), and private investor-owned (OR = 0.421, 0.244-0.726, P < 0.001) patients had similar odds for long duration of stay when compared with government or private. Urban non-teaching (OR = 1.954, 1.653-2.310, P < 0.001) patients had higher odds for long LOS in comparison with urban teaching. New England patients' (OR = 0.365, 0.232-0.576, P < 0.001) odds for extended LOS were lower when compared with pacific. Both patients who received care in low (OR = 1.330, 1.109-1.595, P = 0.002) and medium (OR = 1.639, 1.130-2.377, P = 0.009) volume hospital had increased odds for long duration of stay. Female patients in the stratified logistic regression model with high (OR = 1.330, 1.109-1.595, P < 0.002) volume had elevated odds of extended LOS when compared with very low volume hospital.
CONCLUSION: Among the uncomplicated diabetic patients, LSG provides a substantially low odds of extended LOS after adjusting for covariates when compared with LAGB. The finding of the relative reduction in LOS for LSG suggests opportunities for improvement both for cost reduction for third party insurance payers and greater efficacy and outcomes for patients.
METHODS: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009 to 2014. Patients who received bariatric surgery as indicated by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were selected (N = 4001). Cases were limited to uncomplicated diabetic patients. Differences in the odds of long vs short (2< and ≥2) stay for a patient receiving LSG were compared with LAGB while adjusting for hospital volume, hospital size, patient age, gender, ethnicity, season, and year using logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The odds for LSG (odds ratio [OR] = 0.100, 0.066-0.150, P < 0.001) patients for long LOS are lower when compared with LAGB. In the stratified logistic regression model, both male (OR = 0.157, 0.074-0.333, P < 0.001) and female (OR = 0.077, 0.046-0.127, P < 0.001) had reduced odds of extended LOS for LSG. Discharged patients in the year 2012 (OR = 0.660, 0.536-0.813, P < 0.001) had decreased odds of having a longer LOS when compared with the year 2014. Both government, nonfederal (OR = 0.452, 0.251-0.816, P = 0.008), and private investor-owned (OR = 0.421, 0.244-0.726, P < 0.001) patients had similar odds for long duration of stay when compared with government or private. Urban non-teaching (OR = 1.954, 1.653-2.310, P < 0.001) patients had higher odds for long LOS in comparison with urban teaching. New England patients' (OR = 0.365, 0.232-0.576, P < 0.001) odds for extended LOS were lower when compared with pacific. Both patients who received care in low (OR = 1.330, 1.109-1.595, P = 0.002) and medium (OR = 1.639, 1.130-2.377, P = 0.009) volume hospital had increased odds for long duration of stay. Female patients in the stratified logistic regression model with high (OR = 1.330, 1.109-1.595, P < 0.002) volume had elevated odds of extended LOS when compared with very low volume hospital.
CONCLUSION: Among the uncomplicated diabetic patients, LSG provides a substantially low odds of extended LOS after adjusting for covariates when compared with LAGB. The finding of the relative reduction in LOS for LSG suggests opportunities for improvement both for cost reduction for third party insurance payers and greater efficacy and outcomes for patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app