Literature DB >> 21689348

Low-volume centre vs high-volume: the role of a quality assurance programme in colon cancer surgery.

P Mroczkowski1, R Kube, H Ptok, U Schmidt, S Hac, F Köckerling, I Gastinger, H Lippert.   

Abstract

AIM: The study aimed to determine whether hospitals within a quality assurance programme have outcomes of colon cancer surgery related to volume.
METHOD: Data were used from an observational study to determine whether outcomes of colon cancer surgery are related to hospital volume. Hospitals were divided into three groups (low, medium and high) based on annual caseload. Cancer staging, resected lymph nodes, perioperative complications and follow up were monitored. Between 2000 and 2004, 345 hospitals entered 31,261 patients into the study: 202 hospitals (group I) were classified as low volume (<30 operations; 7760 patients; 24.8%), 111 (group II) as medium volume (30-60; 14,008 patients; 44.8%) and 32 (groups III) as high volume (>60; 9493 patients; 30.4%).
RESULTS: High-volume centres treated more patients in UICC stages 0, I and IV, whereas low-volume centres treated more in stages II and III (P<0.001). There was no significant difference for intra-operative complications and anastomotic leakage. The difference in 30-day mortality between the low and high-volume groups was 0.8% (P=0.023).Local recurrence at 5 years was highest in the medium group. Overall survival was highest in the high-volume group; however, the difference was only significant between the medium and high-volume groups. For the low and high-volume groups, there was no significant difference in the 5-year overall survival rates.
CONCLUSION: A definitive statement on outcome differences between low-volume and high-volume centres participating in a quality assurance programme cannot be made because of the heterogeneity of results and levels of significance. Studies on volume-outcome effects should be regarded critically.
© 2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21689348     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02680.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  9 in total

1.  Risk model for right hemicolectomy based on 19,070 Japanese patients in the National Clinical Database.

Authors:  Hirotoshi Kobayashi; Hiroaki Miyata; Mitsukazu Gotoh; Hideo Baba; Wataru Kimura; Yuko Kitagawa; Tohru Nakagoe; Mitsuo Shimada; Naohiro Tomita; Kenichi Sugihara; Masaki Mori
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 7.527

2.  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

3.  T1 colon cancer in the era of screening: risk factors and treatment.

Authors:  F Bianco; S De Franciscis; A Belli; A Falato; R Fusco; D F Altomare; A Amato; C R Asteria; A Avallone; G A Binda; L Boccia; P Buzzo; M Carvello; C Coco; P Delrio; P De Nardi; M Di Lena; A Failla; F La Torre; M La Torre; M Lemma; P Luffarelli; G Manca; I Maretto; F Marino; A Muratore; A Pascariello; S Pucciarelli; D Rega; V Ripetti; G Rizzo; A Serventi; A Spinelli; F Tatangelo; E D L Urso; G M Romano
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  A high lymph node yield in colon cancer is associated with age, tumour stage, tumour sub-site and priority of surgery. Results from a prospective national cohort study.

Authors:  Jakob Lykke; Per Jess; Ole Roikjær
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  German Bowel Cancer Center: An Attempt to Improve Treatment Quality.

Authors:  Olof Jannasch; Andrej Udelnow; Stefanie Wolff; Hans Lippert; Pawel Mroczkowski
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2015-05-03       Impact factor: 2.260

6.  Safety of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in a low-volume setting: review of early and late outcome.

Authors:  Robert C Gandy; Christophe R Berney
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.260

7.  Risk factors, short and long term outcome of anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Olof Jannasch; Tim Klinge; Ronny Otto; Costanza Chiapponi; Andrej Udelnow; Hans Lippert; Christiane J Bruns; Pawel Mroczkowski
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-11-03

8.  Safety and efficacy of totally minimally invasive right colectomy in the obese patients: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Michele Manigrasso; Mario Musella; Ugo Elmore; Marco Ettore Allaix; Paolo Pietro Bianchi; Alberto Biondi; Luigi Boni; Umberto Bracale; Elisa Cassinotti; Graziano Ceccarelli; Francesco Corcione; Diego Cuccurullo; Maurizio Degiuli; Nicolò De Manzini; Domenico D'Ugo; Giampaolo Formisano; Mario Morino; Silvia Palmisano; Roberto Persiani; Rossella Reddavid; Fabio Rondelli; Nunzio Velotti; Riccardo Rosati; Giovanni Domenico De Palma; Marco Milone
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-05-31

9.  Cognition errors in the treatment course of patients with anastomotic failure after colorectal resection.

Authors:  P Vogel; D H V Vogel
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2019-01-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.