Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30603764›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2019

Short-Term Readmissions After Open, Thoracoscopic, and Robotic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer Based on the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

Katherine L Bailey, Natalie Merchant, Young-Ji Seo, David Elashoff, Peyman Benharash, Jane Yanagawa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katherine L BaileyDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0161-6344
Natalie MerchantDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Young-Ji SeoDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David ElashoffDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Peyman BenharashDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jane YanagawaDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. JYanagawa@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReadmission after surgery is an established surrogate indicator of quality of care. We aimed to compare short-term readmission rates and patient outcomes between open, video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS), and robotic lobectomies in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).

methodsAdults who underwent open, VATS, or robotic lobectomy for lung cancer from 2010 to 2014 were evaluated. Propensity-matched analysis was used to assess differences in readmission characteristics, GDP-adjusted cost, and mortality.

resultsOf the 129,539 lobectomies for lung cancer, 74,493 (57.5%) were open, 48,185 (37.2%) VATS, and 6861 (5.3%) robotic. Open surgery was associated with significantly higher readmission rate (10.5 vs 9.3%, p < 0.001), mortality (2 vs 1.2%, p < 0.001), index hospitalization cost [$21,846 (16,158-31,034) vs $20,779 (15,619-27,920), p < 0.001], and length of stay [6 (5-9) vs 4 (3-7) days, p < 0.001] compared to minimally invasive surgery. The robotic approach had similar mortality, readmission rate, and length of stay compared to VATS, but higher index cost [$23,870 (18,372-31,300) vs $20,279 (15,275-27,375), p < 0.001] and incidence of pulmonary complication (35.9 vs 31.6%, p < 0.001). The robotic approach was associated with greater direct discharges to home.

conclusionsAnalysis of the NRD revealed significantly reduced readmission rates, better clinical outcomes, and lower cost in the minimally invasive approach compared to open surgery. Although VATS and robotic surgery had similar readmission and mortality rates, VATS is associated with significantly reduced risk of short-term complications and lower cost.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualPatient ReadmissionPneumonectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedAgedFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID30603764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.