Adam Polonski1, Jakob R Izbicki2,3, Faik G Uzunoglu1. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. izbicki@uke.de. 3. Department of General Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University of Hamburg Medical Institutions, Martinistr 52, 20252, Hamburg, Germany. izbicki@uke.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this article is a review and an analysis of the current state of centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe. Numerous recent publications demonstrate higher postoperative in-hospital mortality rates in low-volume clinics after pancreatic resection than previously assumed due to their not publishing significantly worse outcomes when compared to high-volume centres. Although the benefits of centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume centres have been demonstrated in many studies, numerous countries have so far failed to establish centralization in their respective health care systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Medline database for studies concerning centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe was conducted. The studies were reviewed independently for previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included 14 studies with a total of 117,634 patients. All data were extracted from or provided by health insurance company or governmental registry databases. RESULTS: Thirteen out of the 14 studies demonstrate an improvement in their respective outcome related to volume. Twelve studies showed a significantly lower postoperative mortality rate in the highest annual volume group in comparison to overall postoperative mortality rate in the whole patient cohort. CONCLUSION: As the available data indicate, most European countries have so far failed to establish centralization of pancreatic surgery to high-volume centres due to numerous reasons. Considering a plateau in survival rates of patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer in Europe during the last 15 years, this review enforces the worldwide plea for centralization to lower post-operative mortality after pancreatic surgery.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this article is a review and an analysis of the current state of centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe. Numerous recent publications demonstrate higher postoperative in-hospital mortality rates in low-volume clinics after pancreatic resection than previously assumed due to their not publishing significantly worse outcomes when compared to high-volume centres. Although the benefits of centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume centres have been demonstrated in many studies, numerous countries have so far failed to establish centralization in their respective health care systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Medline database for studies concerning centralization of pancreatic surgery in Europe was conducted. The studies were reviewed independently for previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included 14 studies with a total of 117,634 patients. All data were extracted from or provided by health insurance company or governmental registry databases. RESULTS: Thirteen out of the 14 studies demonstrate an improvement in their respective outcome related to volume. Twelve studies showed a significantly lower postoperative mortality rate in the highest annual volume group in comparison to overall postoperative mortality rate in the whole patient cohort. CONCLUSION: As the available data indicate, most European countries have so far failed to establish centralization of pancreatic surgery to high-volume centres due to numerous reasons. Considering a plateau in survival rates of patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer in Europe during the last 15 years, this review enforces the worldwide plea for centralization to lower post-operative mortality after pancreatic surgery.
Authors: C Max Schmidt; Olivier Turrini; Purvi Parikh; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Atilla Nakeeb; Thomas J Howard; Henry A Pitt; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-07
Authors: N Tjarda van Heek; Koert F D Kuhlmann; Rob J Scholten; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Huug Obertop; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: R J E Skipworth; R W Parks; N A Stephens; C Graham; D H Brewster; O J Garden; S Paterson-Brown Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: G A Gooiker; W van Gijn; M W J M Wouters; P N Post; C J H van de Velde; R A E M Tollenaar Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Faik G Uzunoglu; Matthias Reeh; Eik Vettorazzi; Till Ruschke; Philipp Hannah; Michael F Nentwich; Yogesh K Vashist; Dean Bogoevski; Alexandra König; Monika Janot; Francesca Gavazzi; Alessandro Zerbi; Valentina Todaro; Giuseppe Malleo; Waldemar Uhl; Marco Montorsi; Claudio Bassi; Jakob R Izbicki; Maximilian Bockhorn Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James T McPhee; Joshua S Hill; Giles F Whalen; Maksim Zayaruzny; Demetrius E Litwin; Mary E Sullivan; Frederick A Anderson; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gabriel Ramirez; Thomas G Myers; Caroline P Thirukumaran; Benjamin F Ricciardi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: J S Hopstaken; D van Dalen; B M van der Kolk; E J M van Geenen; J J Hermans; E C Gootjes; H J Schers; A M van Dulmen; C J H M van Laarhoven; M W J Stommel Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jasmine Leoni; Anne-Laure Rougemont; Ana M Calinescu; Marc Ansari; Philippe Compagnon; Jim C H Wilde; Barbara E Wildhaber Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-02-06
Authors: C M Kugler; K Goossen; T Rombey; K K De Santis; T Mathes; J Breuing; S Hess; R Burchard; D Pieper Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 4.114