Surgical Specialties' Outcomes for Carotid Body Tumor Resection.

IF 0.7
Soraya Fereydooni, Valentyna Kostiuk, Arash Fereydooni, Benjamin Judson
{"title":"Surgical Specialties' Outcomes for Carotid Body Tumor Resection.","authors":"Soraya Fereydooni, Valentyna Kostiuk, Arash Fereydooni, Benjamin Judson","doi":"10.1177/15385744251360824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes of carotid body tumor (CBT) resections performed by vascular surgeons vs otolaryngologists, examining complication rates, operation time, and hospital stay duration.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2006 to 2020. Patients undergoing CBT resection were identified using CPT code 60605. Only cases performed by vascular surgeons or otolaryngologists were included. The primary outcome was any major postoperative complication, with secondary outcomes including operation time and hospital length of stay. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models adjusted for confounders including age, sex, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI), race, surgical setting, and emergency status.ResultsA total of 718 patients (545 vascular surgery, 173 otolaryngology) were included. Patients operated on by vascular surgeons were older (58 vs 51 years, <i>p</i> < .001), had a significantly higher incidence of hypertension (51% vs 36%; <i>p</i> < .001) and mCCI (1.78 ± 1.47 vs 1.25 ± 1.36; <i>p</i> < .001). Otolaryngology surgeries had significantly longer mean operative times (203 vs 145 min, <i>p</i> < .001) and a higher, though not statistically significant, rate of major complications (5.3% vs 2.3%, <i>p</i> = .07). Adjusted multivariable analysis showed otolaryngology specialty was independently associated with increased odds of severe adverse events (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 1.15-7.56; <i>p</i> = .021) and longer operation time (aβ: 61; 95% CI: 46-75; <i>p</i> < .001), but not with reoperation rates.ConclusionWhile both specialties achieved generally safe outcomes, CBT resections performed by otolaryngologists were associated with longer operative times and higher odds of major complications. These differences may reflect variations in case complexity, patient selection, or surgical expertise, warranting further prospective research into multidisciplinary and specialty-specific outcomes for CBT surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"15385744251360824"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744251360824","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes of carotid body tumor (CBT) resections performed by vascular surgeons vs otolaryngologists, examining complication rates, operation time, and hospital stay duration.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2006 to 2020. Patients undergoing CBT resection were identified using CPT code 60605. Only cases performed by vascular surgeons or otolaryngologists were included. The primary outcome was any major postoperative complication, with secondary outcomes including operation time and hospital length of stay. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models adjusted for confounders including age, sex, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI), race, surgical setting, and emergency status.ResultsA total of 718 patients (545 vascular surgery, 173 otolaryngology) were included. Patients operated on by vascular surgeons were older (58 vs 51 years, p < .001), had a significantly higher incidence of hypertension (51% vs 36%; p < .001) and mCCI (1.78 ± 1.47 vs 1.25 ± 1.36; p < .001). Otolaryngology surgeries had significantly longer mean operative times (203 vs 145 min, p < .001) and a higher, though not statistically significant, rate of major complications (5.3% vs 2.3%, p = .07). Adjusted multivariable analysis showed otolaryngology specialty was independently associated with increased odds of severe adverse events (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 1.15-7.56; p = .021) and longer operation time (aβ: 61; 95% CI: 46-75; p < .001), but not with reoperation rates.ConclusionWhile both specialties achieved generally safe outcomes, CBT resections performed by otolaryngologists were associated with longer operative times and higher odds of major complications. These differences may reflect variations in case complexity, patient selection, or surgical expertise, warranting further prospective research into multidisciplinary and specialty-specific outcomes for CBT surgery.

颈动脉体肿瘤切除术的外科专科疗效。
目的:本研究旨在比较血管外科医生与耳鼻喉科医生行颈动脉体瘤(CBT)切除术后30天的预后,检查并发症发生率、手术时间和住院时间。方法采用2006 - 2020年美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)数据库进行回顾性队列分析。接受CBT切除术的患者使用CPT代码60605进行识别。仅包括由血管外科医生或耳鼻喉科医生进行的病例。主要结局是任何主要的术后并发症,次要结局包括手术时间和住院时间。多变量logistic和线性回归模型校正了混杂因素,包括年龄、性别、修正Charlson合并症指数(mCCI)、种族、手术环境和紧急状态。结果共纳入718例患者,其中血管外科545例,耳鼻喉科173例。接受血管外科手术的患者年龄较大(58岁vs 51岁,p < 0.001),高血压发病率明显较高(51% vs 36%;p < 0.001)和mCCI(1.78±1.47 vs 1.25±1.36;P < 0.001)。耳鼻喉科手术的平均手术时间明显更长(203分钟vs 145分钟,p < 0.001),主要并发症发生率较高(5.3% vs 2.3%, p = 0.07),但无统计学意义。调整后的多变量分析显示,耳鼻喉科专业与严重不良事件发生率增加独立相关(aOR: 2.99;95% ci: 1.15-7.56;P = 0.021)和较长的手术时间(aβ: 61;95% ci: 46-75;P < 0.001),但与再手术率无关。结论:虽然这两个专业的结果都是安全的,但耳鼻喉科医生进行CBT切除术的手术时间更长,主要并发症的发生率更高。这些差异可能反映了病例复杂性、患者选择或手术专业知识的差异,需要对CBT手术的多学科和特定专业结果进行进一步的前瞻性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信