Literature DB >> 15584060

Effect of hospital caseload on long-term outcome after standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level.

A Wibe1, M T Eriksen, A Syse, S Tretli, H E Myrvold, O Søreide.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective study was to examine the influence of hospital caseload on long-term outcome following standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level.
METHODS: Data relating to all 3388 Norwegian patients with rectal cancer treated for cure between November 1993 and December 1999 were recorded in a national database. Treating hospitals were divided into four groups according to their annual caseload: hospitals in group 1 (n = 4) carried out 30 or more procedures, those in group 2 (n = 6) performed 20-29 procedures, group 3 (n = 16) 10-19 procedures and group 4 (n = 28) fewer than ten procedures.
RESULTS: The 5-year local recurrence rates were 9.2, 14.7, 12.5 and 17.5 per cent (P = 0.003) and 5-year overall survival rates were 64.4, 64.0, 60.8 and 57.8 per cent (P = 0.105) respectively in the four hospital caseload groups. An annual hospital caseload of less than ten procedures increased the risk of local recurrence compared with that in hospitals where 30 or more procedures were performed each year (hazard ratio 1.9 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.3 to 2.7); P < 0.001). Overall survival was lower for patients treated at hospitals with an annual caseload of less than ten versus hospitals with 30 or more (hazard ratio 1.2 (95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 1.5); P = 0.023).
CONCLUSION: The rate of local recurrence was higher for hospitals with a low annual caseload of less than ten procedures than for hospitals with a high treatment volume of 30 or more. Patients treated in small hospitals also had a shorter long-term survival than those treated in large hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15584060     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4821

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  29 in total

1.  Increased use of multidisciplinary treatment modalities adds little to the outcome of rectal cancer treated by optimal total mesorectal excision.

Authors:  Kah Hoong Chang; Myles J Smith; Oliver J McAnena; Arifin S Aprjanto; Joe F Dowdall
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  The association between county-level surgeon density and esophageal and gastric cancer mortality.

Authors:  Maria Y Ho; Jasem Al-Barrak; Renata D Peixoto; Winson Y Cheung
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2014-12

3.  Systematic review and a meta-analysis of hospital and surgeon volume/outcome relationships in colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ya Ruth Huo; Kevin Phan; David L Morris; Winston Liauw
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2017-06

4.  Changing operative strategy from abdominoperineal resection to sphincter preservation in T3 low rectal cancer after downstaging by neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Khaled M Madbouly; Ahmed M Hussein
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Evidence-based gallbladder cancer staging: changing cancer staging by analysis of data from the National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Yuman Fong; Lawrence Wagman; Mithat Gonen; James Crawford; William Reed; Richard Swanson; Charlie Pan; Jamie Ritchey; Andrew Stewart; Michael Choti
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  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

7.  Management of locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer.

Authors:  Johannes H W de Wilt; Maarten Vermaas; Floris T J Ferenschild; Cornelis Verhoef
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-08

8.  Surgical Unit volume and 30-day reoperation rate following primary resection for colorectal cancer in the Veneto Region (Italy).

Authors:  S Pucciarelli; A Chiappetta; G Giacomazzo; A Barina; N Gennaro; M Rebonato; D Nitti; M Saugo
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 9.  The effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Talya Salz; Robert S Sandler
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventive strategies.

Authors:  Philipp Kirchhoff; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Dieter Hahnloser
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2010-03-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.