Literature DB >> 10493487

Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection.

J W Harmon1, D G Tang, T A Gordon, H M Bowman, M A Choti, H S Kaufman, J S Bender, M D Duncan, T H Magnuson, K D Lillemoe, J L Cameron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of surgeon and hospital case volumes with the short-term outcomes of in-hospital death, total hospital charges, and length of stay for resection of colorectal carcinoma.
METHODS: The study design was a cross-sectional analysis of all adult patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer using Maryland state discharge data from 1992 to 1996. Cases were divided into three groups based on annual surgeon case volume--low (< or =5), medium (5 to 10), and high (>10)--and hospital volume--low (<40), medium (40 to 70), and high (> or =70). Poisson and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences in outcomes among volume groups while adjusting for variations in type of resections performed, cancer stage, patient comorbidities, urgency of admission, and patient demographic variables.
RESULTS: During the 5-year period, 9739 resections were performed by 812 surgeons at 50 hospitals. The majority of surgeons (81%) and hospitals (58%) were in the low-volume group. The low-volume surgeons operated on 3461 of the 9739 total patients (36%) at an average rate of 1.8 cases per year. Higher surgeon volume was associated with significant improvement in all three outcomes (in-hospital death, length of stay, and cost). Medium-volume surgeons achieved results equivalent to high-volume surgeons when they operated in high- or medium-volume hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS: A skewed distribution of case volumes by surgeon was found in this study of patients who underwent resection for large bowel cancer in Maryland. The majority of these surgeons performed very few operations for colorectal cancer per year, whereas a minority performed >10 cases per year. Medium-volume surgeons achieved excellent outcomes similar to high-volume surgeons when operating in medium-volume or high-volume hospitals, but not in low-volume hospitals. The results of low-volume surgeons improved with increasing hospital volume but never equaled those of the high-volume surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10493487      PMCID: PMC1420885          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199909000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  30 in total

1.  Should hepatic resections be performed at high-volume referral centers?

Authors:  M A Choti; H M Bowman; H A Pitt; J A Sosa; J V Sitzmann; J L Cameron; T A Gordon
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Effect of surgical experience on the results of resection for oesophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  H R Matthews; D J Powell; C C McConkey
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Association of volume with outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Scheduled vs nonscheduled operations.

Authors:  J A Showstack; K E Rosenfeld; D W Garnick; H S Luft; R W Schaffarzick; J Fowles
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1987-02-13       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Anastomotic integrity after operations for large-bowel cancer: a multicentre study.

Authors:  L P Fielding; S Stewart-Brown; L Blesovsky; G Kearney
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1980-08-09

6.  Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality.

Authors:  H S Luft; J P Bunker; A C Enthoven
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-12-20       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Physician and hospital factors associated with mortality of surgical patients.

Authors:  J V Kelly; F J Hellinger
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery.

Authors:  C B Begg; L D Cramer; W J Hoskins; M F Brennan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-11-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Local recurrence following 'curative' surgery for large bowel cancer: I. The overall picture.

Authors:  R K Phillips; R Hittinger; L Blesovsky; J S Fry; L P Fielding
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  The importance of surgeon experience for clinical and economic outcomes from thyroidectomy.

Authors:  J A Sosa; H M Bowman; J M Tielsch; N R Powe; T A Gordon; R Udelsman
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  88 in total

1.  Surgical outcomes. What are they and why should they be measured?

Authors:  L W Traverso
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The volume-outcome relationship in cancer surgery: a hard sell.

Authors:  Ingemar Ihse
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery.

Authors:  Philip P Goodney; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Emily V A Finlayson; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  The effect of surgical volume and the provision of residency and fellowship training on complications of major hepatic resection.

Authors:  Geoffrey Paul Kohn; Mehrdad Nikfarjam
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Colorectal Cancer OncoGuia.

Authors:  Paula Manchon Walsh; Josep M Borràs; Tàrsila Ferro; Josep Alfons Espinàs
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.405

6.  Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario.

Authors:  Marko Simunovic; Eddy Rempel; Marc-Erick Thériault; Angela Coates; Timothy Whelan; Eric Holowaty; Bernard Langer; Mark Levine
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 7.  Outcomes in oncologic surgery: does volume make a difference?

Authors:  David J Bentrem; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  Minimum Volume Discussion in the Treatment of Colon and Rectal Cancer: A Review of the Current Status and Relevance of Surgeon and Hospital Volume regarding Result Quality and the Impact on Health Economics.

Authors:  Karl-Heinrich Link; Peter Coy; Mark Roitman; Carola Link; Marko Kornmann; Ludger Staib
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-04-20

9.  Surgery for rectal cancer performed at teaching hospitals improves survival and preserves continence.

Authors:  Juan C Gutierrez; Noor Kassira; Rabih M Salloum; Dido Franceschi; Leonidas G Koniaris
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremities: What Is the Value of Treating at High-volume Centers?

Authors:  Alexander L Lazarides; David L Kerr; Daniel P Nussbaum; R Timothy Kreulen; Jason A Somarelli; Dan G Blazer; Brian E Brigman; William C Eward
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.