BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to provide a contemporary quantitative analysis of the existing literature examining the relationship between surgical caseload and outcome following esophageal resection. METHODS: Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched for trials comparing clinical outcome following esophagectomy from high- and low-volume hospitals since 2000. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative complications. RESULTS: Nine appropriate publications comprising 27,843 esophagectomy operations were included, 12,130 and 15,713 operations were performed in low- and high-volume surgical units, respectively. Esophagectomy at low-volume hospitals was associated with a significant increase in incidence of in-hospital (8.48% vs. 2.82%; pooled odds ratio (POR) = 0.29; P < 0.0001) and 30-day mortality (2.09% vs. 0.73%; POR = 0.31; P < 0.0001). There was insufficient data for conclusive statistical analysis of length of hospital stay or post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis does suggest a benefit in the centralization of esophageal cancer surgery to high-volume institutions with respect to mortality. The outcomes of this study are of interest to patients, healthcare providers and payers, particularly regarding service reconfiguration and more specifically centralization of services. Future studies that look at long-term survival will help improve understanding of any late consequences such as survival and quality of life following esophageal surgery at low- and high-volume hospitals.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to provide a contemporary quantitative analysis of the existing literature examining the relationship between surgical caseload and outcome following esophageal resection. METHODS: Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched for trials comparing clinical outcome following esophagectomy from high- and low-volume hospitals since 2000. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative complications. RESULTS: Nine appropriate publications comprising 27,843 esophagectomy operations were included, 12,130 and 15,713 operations were performed in low- and high-volume surgical units, respectively. Esophagectomy at low-volume hospitals was associated with a significant increase in incidence of in-hospital (8.48% vs. 2.82%; pooled odds ratio (POR) = 0.29; P < 0.0001) and 30-day mortality (2.09% vs. 0.73%; POR = 0.31; P < 0.0001). There was insufficient data for conclusive statistical analysis of length of hospital stay or post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis does suggest a benefit in the centralization of esophageal cancer surgery to high-volume institutions with respect to mortality. The outcomes of this study are of interest to patients, healthcare providers and payers, particularly regarding service reconfiguration and more specifically centralization of services. Future studies that look at long-term survival will help improve understanding of any late consequences such as survival and quality of life following esophageal surgery at low- and high-volume hospitals.
Authors: Geoffrey Paul Kohn; Joseph Anton Galanko; Michael Owen Meyers; Richard Harry Feins; Timothy Michael Farrell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Andrew D Auerbach; Judith Maselli; Jonathan Carter; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Jelle P Ruurda; Misha D P Luyer; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Ronald L A W Bleys Journal: J Anat Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: Silvio Däster; Savas D Soysal; Luca Koechlin; Lea Stoll; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Ackermann Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Jelle P Ruurda; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Misha D P Luyer Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ines Gockel; Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand; Michael Arras; Elke Maria Schreiber; Hauke Lang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Sheraz R Markar; Henner Schmidt; Sonia Kunz; Artur Bodnar; Michal Hubka; Donald E Low Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Daniela Molena; Francisco Schlottmann; Joshua A Boys; Shanda H Blackmon; Karen J Dickinson; Christy M Dunst; Wayne L Hofstetter; Michal J Lada; Brian E Louie; Benedetto Mungo; Thomas J Watson; Steven R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.452