Skip to main content
Log in

Analysis of the SAGES outcomes initiative cholecystectomy registry

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In 1999, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) introduced the SAGES Outcomes Initiative as a method for its members to use for tracking their own outcomes. This report provides a descriptive analysis of the cholecystectomy database.

Methods

The SAGES Outcome Initiative database was accessed for all gallbladder cases from September 1999 to February 2005. The data from the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative entries were summarized. These data are purely descriptive, and no statistical analysis was performed.

Results

The gallbladder registry contained 3,285 cases, with 2,005 follow-up cases. Most patients were employed women with some comorbidities who had elective surgery under general anesthesia. Most of the operating surgeons were attending surgeons and surgical assistants. Most of the patients had biliary colic, and symptoms were improved for more than 95% of the patients. More than 90% of the cases were managed laparoscopically, with a conversion rate of 3%. Biliary imaging was used in the vast majority of cases, with most shown to be normal. Intraoperative gallbladder perforation was common, with bile duct injury occurring in 0.25% of cases. The most frequently cited postoperative event was wound infection, with most complications classified as class 1. More than 95% of the patients were able to return to work.

Conclusions

The SAGES Outcomes Initiative database demonstrates that most participating SAGES members perform laparoscopic cholecystectomies themselves using intraoperative cholangiograms. Adverse outcomes are few, with most patients able to return to normal activity. Importantly, there were relatively few missing data points, implying that when surgeons enter data, the information is relatively complete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brunt LM, Quasebarth MA, Dunnegan DL, Soper NJ (2001) Outcomes analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the extreme elderly. Surg Endosc 15: 700–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111: 518–526

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Flum DR, Cheadle A, Prela C, Dellinger EP, Chan L (2003) Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy and survival in Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 290: 2168–2173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Flum DR, Flowers C, Veenstra DL (2003) A cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative cholangiography in the prevention of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 196: 385–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Flum DR, Koepsell T, Heagerty P, Sinanan M, Dellinger EP (2001) Common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the use of intraoperative cholangiography: adverse outcome or preventable error? Arch Surg 136: 1287–1292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kane RL, Maciejewski M, Finch M (1997) The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes. Med Care 35: 714–730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Khaitan L, Aprelgren K, Hunter J, Traverso LW (2003) A report on the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons Outcomes Initiative: what have we learned and what is the potential. Surg Endosc 17: 365–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee J, Velanovich V (2003) Factors influencing patients satisfaction after cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17: S252

    Google Scholar 

  9. Livingston EH, Rege RV (2004) A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 188: 205–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. MacFadyen BV Jr, Vecchio R, Ricardo AE, Mathis CR (1998) Bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the United States experience. Surg Endosc 12: 315–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morton JM, Galanko JA, Soper NJ, Hunter J, Traverso LW NIS vs SAGES: a comparison of national and voluntary databases. Surg Endosc, in press

  12. Orringer MB (2001) STS database activities and you: “What’s in it for me?” Ann Thorac Surg 72: 1–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sathesh-Kumar T, Saklani AP, Vinayagam R, Blackett RL (2004) Spilled gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a review of the literature. Postgrad Med J 80: 77–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Traverso LW, Lonborg R, Pettingell K, Fenster LF (2000) Utilization of cholecystectomy: a prospective outcome analysis in 1,325 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 4: 1–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Turner AR, Yuksek YN, Yasti AC, Gozalan U, Kama NA (2005) Dropped gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the consequences. World J Surg Mar 22 [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Velanovich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Velanovich, V., Morton, J.M., McDonald, M. et al. Analysis of the SAGES outcomes initiative cholecystectomy registry. Surg Endosc 20, 43–50 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0378-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0378-0

Keywords

Navigation