Emmeline Nugent1, Paul Neary. 1. National Surgical Training Centre, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, 121 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland. emmelinenugent@rcsi.ie
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is strong evidence supporting the importance of the volume-outcome relationship with respect to lung and pancreatic cancers. This relationship for rectal cancer surgery however remains unclear. We review the currently available literature to assess the evidence base for volume outcome in relation to rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: We analysed the Medline "PubMed" online database using the keyword search parameters of "rectal cancer", "hospital volume or caseload", "surgeon volume or caseload", "outcomes", "mortality", "approach", "local recurrence" and "morbidity" for the time period 1997-2009. Five hundred twenty-six generic articles were identified. Articles that were not specific for, or separately identified, rectal cancer surgery in their individual analysis were excluded. Eighteen articles remained for review. We assessed short-term morbidity and long-term outcomes such as sphincter preservation, mortality and local recurrence rates. RESULTS: Considerable variance was noted in the definition of high volume and low volume. Postoperative length of stay was lower and sphincter-preserving surgery was more commonly performed in high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons. Surgeon specialisation was an important factor influencing sphincter preservation, survival and local recurrence rates. Volume was found to have no negative relationship with mortality and a positive one with local recurrence. Interestingly, there was no association found between hospital or surgeon caseload and postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of evidence in the literature regarding the volume-outcome relationship with regard to rectal cancer surgery. High-volume institutions yielded shorter lengths of stay. However, the key finding was that high-volume surgeons that specialised in colorectal surgery yielded objectively improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.
PURPOSE: There is strong evidence supporting the importance of the volume-outcome relationship with respect to lung and pancreatic cancers. This relationship for rectal cancer surgery however remains unclear. We review the currently available literature to assess the evidence base for volume outcome in relation to rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: We analysed the Medline "PubMed" online database using the keyword search parameters of "rectal cancer", "hospital volume or caseload", "surgeon volume or caseload", "outcomes", "mortality", "approach", "local recurrence" and "morbidity" for the time period 1997-2009. Five hundred twenty-six generic articles were identified. Articles that were not specific for, or separately identified, rectal cancer surgery in their individual analysis were excluded. Eighteen articles remained for review. We assessed short-term morbidity and long-term outcomes such as sphincter preservation, mortality and local recurrence rates. RESULTS: Considerable variance was noted in the definition of high volume and low volume. Postoperative length of stay was lower and sphincter-preserving surgery was more commonly performed in high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons. Surgeon specialisation was an important factor influencing sphincter preservation, survival and local recurrence rates. Volume was found to have no negative relationship with mortality and a positive one with local recurrence. Interestingly, there was no association found between hospital or surgeon caseload and postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of evidence in the literature regarding the volume-outcome relationship with regard to rectal cancer surgery. High-volume institutions yielded shorter lengths of stay. However, the key finding was that high-volume surgeons that specialised in colorectal surgery yielded objectively improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Engel; J Kerr; R Eckel; B Günther; M Heiss; W Heitland; J R Siewert; K-W Jauch; D Hölzel Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: M Simunovic; T To; N Baxter; A Balshem; E Ross; Z Cohen; R McLeod; P Engstrom; E Sigurdson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Christopher M Dodgion; Bridget A Neville; Stuart R Lipsitz; Deborah Schrag; Elizabeth Breen; Michael J Zinner; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-03-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Jennifer E Hrabe; Kara B Wright; Jennifer A Schlichting; Bradley D McDowell; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Chi Lin; Karyn B Stitzenberg; John W Cromwell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Natalie J Del Vecchio; Jennifer A Schlichting; Catherine Chioreso; Amanda R Kahl; Jennifer E Hrabe; Charles F Lynch; Michele M West; Mary E Charlton Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Ariana F Shahnazi; Irena Gribovskaja-Rupp; Lisa Hunter; Michele A Mengeling; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Charles F Lynch; Marcia M Ward Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.452