Cargando…

Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between the two latest innovations in powered stapling technology, the ECHELON FLEX™ GST system (GST) and the Signia™ Stapling System (SIG), among patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare Database of US hosp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rawlins, Logan, Johnson, Barbara H, Johnston, Stephen S, Elangovanraaj, Nivesh, Bhandari, Mohit, Cohen, Ricardo V, Rheinwalt, Karl Peter, Fryrear, Raymond, Roy, Sanjoy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7368239/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765125
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S256237
_version_ 1783560577205927936
author Rawlins, Logan
Johnson, Barbara H
Johnston, Stephen S
Elangovanraaj, Nivesh
Bhandari, Mohit
Cohen, Ricardo V
Rheinwalt, Karl Peter
Fryrear, Raymond
Roy, Sanjoy
author_facet Rawlins, Logan
Johnson, Barbara H
Johnston, Stephen S
Elangovanraaj, Nivesh
Bhandari, Mohit
Cohen, Ricardo V
Rheinwalt, Karl Peter
Fryrear, Raymond
Roy, Sanjoy
author_sort Rawlins, Logan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between the two latest innovations in powered stapling technology, the ECHELON FLEX™ GST system (GST) and the Signia™ Stapling System (SIG), among patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare Database of US hospital discharge records, we selected patients undergoing inpatient sleeve gastrectomy with dates of surgical admission between March 1, 2017 (SIG launch), and December 31, 2018. Outcomes measured during the surgical admission included in-hospital hemostasis-related complications (bleeding/transfusion; primary outcome), leak, total hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), and operating room time; 30-, 60-, and 90-day all-cause inpatient readmissions were also examined. We used 1:1 cardinality matching to balance the GST and SIG groups on numerous patient and hospital/provider characteristics, allowing a maximum standardized mean difference (SMD) ≤0.05 for all matching covariates. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) accounting for hospital-level clustering were used to compare the study outcomes between the GST and SIG groups. RESULTS: Of the 5573 identified cases, there were 491 patients in each group (982 total) after matching. The observed incidence proportion of hemostasis-related complications during the surgical admission was lower in the GST group as compared with the SIG group (3 events/491 [0.61%] vs 11 events/491 [2.24%]; odds ratio [SIG=reference] = 0.28, 95% CI=0.13–0.60, P=0.0012). Differences between the GST and SIG groups were not statistically significant for leak, total hospital costs, LOS, OR time, and all-cause inpatient readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of 982 matched patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy, the ECHELON FLEX™ GST system was associated with a lower rate of hemostasis-related complications as compared with the Signia™ Stapling System. Further controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm the validity of this finding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7368239
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73682392020-08-05 Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study Rawlins, Logan Johnson, Barbara H Johnston, Stephen S Elangovanraaj, Nivesh Bhandari, Mohit Cohen, Ricardo V Rheinwalt, Karl Peter Fryrear, Raymond Roy, Sanjoy Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between the two latest innovations in powered stapling technology, the ECHELON FLEX™ GST system (GST) and the Signia™ Stapling System (SIG), among patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Premier Healthcare Database of US hospital discharge records, we selected patients undergoing inpatient sleeve gastrectomy with dates of surgical admission between March 1, 2017 (SIG launch), and December 31, 2018. Outcomes measured during the surgical admission included in-hospital hemostasis-related complications (bleeding/transfusion; primary outcome), leak, total hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), and operating room time; 30-, 60-, and 90-day all-cause inpatient readmissions were also examined. We used 1:1 cardinality matching to balance the GST and SIG groups on numerous patient and hospital/provider characteristics, allowing a maximum standardized mean difference (SMD) ≤0.05 for all matching covariates. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) accounting for hospital-level clustering were used to compare the study outcomes between the GST and SIG groups. RESULTS: Of the 5573 identified cases, there were 491 patients in each group (982 total) after matching. The observed incidence proportion of hemostasis-related complications during the surgical admission was lower in the GST group as compared with the SIG group (3 events/491 [0.61%] vs 11 events/491 [2.24%]; odds ratio [SIG=reference] = 0.28, 95% CI=0.13–0.60, P=0.0012). Differences between the GST and SIG groups were not statistically significant for leak, total hospital costs, LOS, OR time, and all-cause inpatient readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of 982 matched patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy, the ECHELON FLEX™ GST system was associated with a lower rate of hemostasis-related complications as compared with the Signia™ Stapling System. Further controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm the validity of this finding. Dove 2020-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7368239/ /pubmed/32765125 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S256237 Text en © 2020 Rawlins et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Rawlins, Logan
Johnson, Barbara H
Johnston, Stephen S
Elangovanraaj, Nivesh
Bhandari, Mohit
Cohen, Ricardo V
Rheinwalt, Karl Peter
Fryrear, Raymond
Roy, Sanjoy
Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study
title Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study
title_full Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study
title_fullStr Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study
title_short Comparative Effectiveness Assessment of Two Powered Surgical Stapling Platforms in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Matched Study
title_sort comparative effectiveness assessment of two powered surgical stapling platforms in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective matched study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7368239/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765125
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S256237
work_keys_str_mv AT rawlinslogan comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT johnsonbarbarah comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT johnstonstephens comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT elangovanraajnivesh comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT bhandarimohit comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT cohenricardov comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT rheinwaltkarlpeter comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT fryrearraymond comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy
AT roysanjoy comparativeeffectivenessassessmentoftwopoweredsurgicalstaplingplatformsinlaparoscopicsleevegastrectomyaretrospectivematchedstudy