Literature DB >> 20485000

Variability in reconstructive procedures following rectal cancer surgery in the United States.

Rocco Ricciardi1, Patricia L Roberts, Thomas E Read, Peter W Marcello, David J Schoetz, Nancy N Baxter.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We sought to identify variability in surgical care for rectal cancer across the United States. In particular, we hypothesized that in large areas of the country patients are infrequently treated by proctectomy using restorative ("sphincter-sparing") techniques.
METHODS: We used all-payer state hospital discharge data from 21 states to determine county level rates of restorative proctectomy vs nonrestorative proctectomy (with colostomy) for rectal cancer. County of residence data were then used to graphically represent variability in surgical care for rectal cancer.
RESULTS: From January 2002 through December 2004, 19,912 proctectomies were performed for rectal cancer. Overall, restorative techniques were used in 50.1% of all patients, whereas nonrestorative techniques were used in 49.9%. In approximately one-fourth of the counties surveyed (n = 125; 26%) nonrestorative techniques were used in greater than 60% of proctectomy cases. In the majority of counties (n = 266; 54%,) nonrestorative techniques were used in 41% to 60% of proctectomy cases. Only 20.0% (n = 98) of counties were characterized by rates of nonrestorative proctectomy below 41%. The extremal quotient was 16.9, indicating significant county variability in colostomy formation for rectal cancer surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant geographic variability in the rates of restorative vs nonrestorative proctectomy for rectal cancer in the United States. Large areas of the country report particularly high rates of colostomy formation after proctectomy. An in-depth population-based analysis designed to identify factors contributing to this variability in surgical treatment of rectal cancer is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20485000     DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181cf6f58

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  12 in total

1.  Do Diagnostic and Procedure Codes Within Population-Based, Administrative Datasets Accurately Identify Patients with Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Reilly P Musselman; Tara Gomes; Deanna M Rothwell; Rebecca C Auer; Husein Moloo; Robin P Boushey; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Transanal TATA/TME: a case-matched study of taTME versus laparoscopic TME surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  J H Marks; G A Montenegro; J F Salem; M V Shields; G J Marks
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 3.  Multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer: the OSTRICH.

Authors:  David W Dietz
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Assessment of Textbook Oncologic Outcomes Following Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Samer A Naffouje; Muhammed A Ali; Sivesh K Kamarajah; Bradley White; George I Salti; Fadi Dahdaleh
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Patterns of colorectal cancer care in the United States and Canada: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eboneé N Butler; Neetu Chawla; Jennifer Lund; Linda C Harlan; Joan L Warren; K Robin Yabroff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2013

6.  Benchmarking rectal cancer care: institutional compliance with a longitudinal checklist.

Authors:  William C Chapman; Pamela Choi; Alexander T Hawkins; Steven R Hunt; Matthew L Silviera; Paul E Wise; Matthew G Mutch; Sean C Glasgow
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  Early rectal cancer: the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference.

Authors:  Mario Morino; Mauro Risio; Simon Bach; Regina Beets-Tan; Krzysztof Bujko; Yves Panis; Philip Quirke; Bjorn Rembacken; Eric Rullier; Yutaka Saito; Tonia Young-Fadok; Marco Ettore Allaix
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Recent advances in the management of rectal cancer: No surgery, minimal surgery or minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Joseph M Plummer; Pierre-Anthony Leake; Matthew R Albert
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-06-27

9.  Nomogram Prediction of Anastomotic Leakage and Determination of an Effective Surgical Strategy for Reducing Anastomotic Leakage after Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Chang Hyun Kim; Soo Young Lee; Hyeong Rok Kim; Young Jin Kim
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 2.260

10.  Factors Associated With Oncologic Outcomes Following Abdominoperineal or Intersphincteric Resection in Patients Treated With Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: A Propensity Score Analysis.

Authors:  Chang Hyun Kim; Soo Young Lee; Hyeong Rok Kim; Young Jin Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.