Literature DB >> 25001097

Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

Zaid M Abdelsattar1, Sandra L Wong, Nancy J Birkmeyer, Robert K Cleary, Melissa L Times, Ryan E Figg, Nanette Peters, Robert W Krell, Darrell A Campbell, Marcia M Russell, Samantha Hendren.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons' selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings.
METHODS: Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as 'definitely SPS eligible' a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS.
RESULTS: In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47-91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) 'definitely-eligible' patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65-100 %).
CONCLUSIONS: SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25001097      PMCID: PMC4251773          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3882-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  17 in total

1.  Impact of a surgical training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Stockholm.

Authors:  A Martling; T Holm; L E Rutqvist; H Johansson; B J Moran; R J Heald; B Cedermark
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Harriett Purves; Ricardo Pietrobon; Sheleika Hervey; Ulrich Guller; William Miller; Kirk Ludwig
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Population-based use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer: is there room for improvement?

Authors:  Devon P Richardson; Geoff A Porter; Paul M Johnson
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.585

4.  Antibiotic choice is independently associated with risk of surgical site infection after colectomy: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Samantha Hendren; Danielle Fritze; Mousumi Banerjee; James Kubus; Robert K Cleary; Michael J Englesbe; Darrell A Campbell
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Practicability of quality goals for the treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Sigmar Stelzner; Gunter Hellmich; Gunter Haroske; Erik Puffer; Thomas Jackisch; Helmut Witzigmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Who performs proctectomy for rectal cancer in the United States?

Authors:  Rocco Ricciardi; Patricia L Roberts; Thomas E Read; Nancy N Baxter; Peter W Marcello; David J Schoetz
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Accelerating the pace of surgical quality improvement: the power of hospital collaboration.

Authors:  Darrell A Campbell; Michael J Englesbe; James J Kubus; Laurel R S Phillips; Charles J Shanley; Vic Velanovich; Larry R Lloyd; Max C Hutton; Wallace A Arneson; David A Share
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-10

8.  The status of radical proctectomy and sphincter-sparing surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Rocco Ricciardi; Beth A Virnig; Robert D Madoff; David A Rothenberger; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene?

Authors:  E Morris; P Quirke; J D Thomas; L Fairley; B Cottier; D Forman
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2008-06-05       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Joel E Tepper; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna R Hollis; Deborah Schrag; John Z Ayanian; Michael J O'Connell; Jane C Weeks; Robert J Mayer; Christopher G Willett; John S MacDonald; Al B Benson; Charles S Fuchs
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  2 in total

1.  The fate of preserved sphincter in rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Ri Na Yoo; Gun Kim; Bong-Hyeon Kye; Hyeon-Min Cho; HyungJin Kim
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal cancer treatment: results of a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  T Koëter; L C F de Nes; D K Wasowicz; D D E Zimmerman; R H A Verhoeven; M A Elferink; J H W de Wilt
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-07-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.