Literature DB >> 25005073

Centralization of esophagectomy: how far should we go?

Daniel Henneman1, Johan L Dikken, Hein Putter, Valery E P P Lemmens, Lydia G M Van der Geest, Richard van Hillegersberg, Marcel Verheij, Cornelis J H van de Velde, Michel W J M Wouters.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to define a statistically sound and clinically meaningful cutoff point for annual hospital volume for esophagectomy. Higher hospital volumes are associated with improved outcomes after esophagectomy. However, reported optimal volumes in literature vary, and minimal volume standards in different countries show considerable variation. So far, there has been no research on the noncategorical, nonlinear, volume-outcome relationship in esophagectomy.
METHODS: Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Restricted cubic splines were used to investigate the nonlinear effects of annual hospital volume on 6 month and 2 year mortality rates. Outcomes were adjusted for year of diagnosis, case-mix, and (neo)adjuvant treatment.
RESULTS: Between 1989 and 2009, 10,025 patients underwent esophagectomy for cancer in the Netherlands. Annual hospital volumes varied between 1 and 83 year, increasing over time. Increasing annual hospital volume showed a continuous, nonlinear decrease in hazard ratio (HR) for mortality along the curve. Increasing hospital volume from 20 year (baseline, HR = 1.00) to 40 and 60 year was associated with decreasing 6 month mortality, with a HR of 0.73 (95 % confidence interval (0.65-0.83) and 0.67 (0.58-0.77) respectively. Beyond 60 year, no further decrease was detected. Higher hospital volume also was associated with decreasing 2 year mortality until 50 esophagectomies year with a HR of 0.86 (0.79-0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of esophagectomy to a minimum of 20 resections/year has been effectively introduced in the Netherlands. Increasing annual hospital volume was associated with a nonlinear decrease in mortality up to 40-60 esophagectomies/year, after which a plateau was reached. This finding may guide quality improvement efforts worldwide.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25005073     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3873-5

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


  16 in total

1.  Perioperative outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a mid-volume institution in the era of centralization.

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

2.  Extremity in surgeon volume: Korea may be the place to go if you want to be a decent gastric surgeon.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Kodera
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2015-04-05       Impact factor: 7.370

Review 3.  Is There a Rationale for Structural Quality Assurance in Esophageal Surgery?

Authors:  Torben Glatz; Jens Höppner
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-03-24

Review 4.  Esophageal surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it.

Authors:  Paolo Parise; Ugo Elmore; Uberto Fumagalli; Giovanni De Manzoni; Simone Giacopuzzi; Riccardo Rosati
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-05-30

5.  Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: less is more.

Authors:  Pieter Christiaan van der Sluis; Peter Philipp Grimminger; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jelle Piet-Hein Ruurda
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Antireflux Surgery in the USA: Influence of Surgical Volume on Perioperative Outcomes and Costs-Time for Centralization?

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Paula D Strassle; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Paraesophageal Hernia Repair in the USA: Trends of Utilization Stratified by Surgical Volume and Consequent Impact on Perioperative Outcomes.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Paula D Strassle; Marco E Allaix; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  International Variation in Surgical Practices in Units Performing Oesophagectomy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Unit Survey from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).

Authors: 
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Should a Thoracic Surgeon Transfer a Complicated Case to a Competing Medical Center Against the Hospital's Order?

Authors:  Kathleen Fenton; Jennifer Ellis; Robert M Sade
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Surgical team proficiency in minimally invasive esophagectomy is related to case volume and improves patient outcomes.

Authors:  Akihiko Okamura; Masayuki Watanabe; Ian Fukudome; Kotaro Yamashita; Masami Yuda; Masaru Hayami; Yu Imamura; Shinji Mine
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.230

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.