Top

Published in:

01-10-2005

Outcomes in Oncologic Surgery: Does Volume Make a Difference?

Authors: David J. Bentrem, M.D., Murray F. Brennan, M.D.

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 10/2005

Abstract

Commonly performed elective surgical procedures on the alimentary tract are carried out with low morbidity and low mortality in most hospitals in the United States. There are some procedures on the alimentary tract that are performed with a relatively low frequency and are associated with higher mortality. Volume is a surrogate marker associated with improved outcome, with relative differences being dependent on the complexity of the procedure and the frequency with which it is done. Both surgeon and institutional volume matters, but it seems that improved operative mortality can be reached with lower surgeon volume in high-volume institutions. It appears that volume can be substituted in part for by specialization and training, with improved outcomes based on specialist credentials and fellowship training.

Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N. Engl. J. Med. 1979; 301:1364–1369PubMedCrossRef

Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;349:2117–2127CrossRefPubMed

Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002; 346:1128–1137CrossRefPubMed

Sainsbury R, Haward B, Rider L, et al. Influence of clinician workload and patterns of treatment on survival from breast cancer. Lancet 1995;345:1265–1270CrossRefPubMed

Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E, et al. Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann. Surg. 2002;236:583–592CrossRefPubMed

Ritchie WP Jr., Rhodes RS, Biester TW. Work loads and practice patterns of general surgeons in the United States, 1995–1997: a report from the American Board of Surgery. Ann. Surg. 1999;230:533–542CrossRefPubMed

Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Bass EB, et al. Complex gastrointestinal surgery: impact of provider experience on clinical and economic outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 1999;189:46–56CrossRefPubMed

Porter GA, Pisters PW, Mansyur C, et al. Cost and utilization impact of a clinical pathway for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2000;7:484–489PubMed

Hannan EL, Radzyner M, Rubin D, et al. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery 2002;131:6–15CrossRefPubMed

10.

Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E, et al. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2003;83:68–78CrossRefPubMed

11.

Finlayson EV, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer JD. Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. Arch. Surg. 2003;138:721–725PubMed

12.

Harmon JW, Tang DG, Gordon TA, et al. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann. Surg. 1999;230:404–411CrossRefPubMed

13.

Prystowsky JB, Bordage G, Feinglass JM. Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon’s training, certification, and experience. Surgery 2002;2132:663–670

14.

Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 1999;230:414–429CrossRefPubMed

15.

Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, et al. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. J.A.M.A 1998;280:1747–1751PubMedCrossRef

16.

Choti MA, Bowman HM, Pitt HA, et al. Should hepatic resections be performed at high-volume referral centers? J. Gastrointest. Surg. 1998;2:11–20CrossRefPubMed

17.

Glasgow RE, Showstack JA, Katz PP, et al. The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes of hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch. Surg. 1999;134:30–35PubMed

18.

Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr., Knol JA, et al. Hepatic resection in the United States: indications, outcomes, and hospital procedural volumes from a nationally representative database. Arch. Surg. 2003;138:185–191PubMed

19.

Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, et al. Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann. Surg. 1991;226:248–257

20.

Pellegrini CA, Heck CF, Raper S, et al. An analysis of the reduced morbidity and mortality rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Arch. Surg. 1989;124:778–781PubMed

21.

Stojadinovic A, Brooks A, Hoos A, et al. An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2003;196:954–964CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Gordon TA, et al. Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:429–438PubMed

23.

Balcom JHT, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL, et al. Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections: changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization. Arch. Surg. 2001;136:391–398PubMed

24.

Ho V, Heslin MJ. Effect of hospital volume and experience on in-hospital mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann. Surg. 2003;237:509–514CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, et al. Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann. Surg. 1995;222:638–645PubMed

26.

Gordon TA, Burleyson GP, Tielsch JM, et al. The effects of regionalization on cost and outcome for one general high-risk surgical procedure. Ann. Surg. 1995;221:43–49PubMed

27.

Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, et al. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:71–78CrossRefPubMed

28.

Goodney PP, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, et al. Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery. Ann. Surg. 2003;238:161–167CrossRefPubMed

29.

Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer JD. Effects of hospital volume on life expectancy after selected cancer operations in older adults: a decision analysis. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2003;196:410–417CrossRefPubMed

30.

Edge SB, Schmieg RE Jr., Rosenlof LK, et al. Pancreas cancer resection outcome in American university centers in 1989–1990. Cancer 1993;71:3502–3508PubMed

31.

Janes RH Jr., Niederhuber JE, Chmiel JS, et al. National patterns of care for pancreatic cancer. Results of a survey by the Commission on Cancer. Ann. Surg. 1996;223:261–272CrossRefPubMed

32.

Andren-Sandberg A, Ihse I. Factors influencing survival after total pancreatectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer. Ann. Surg. 1983;198:605–610PubMed

33.

Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, et al. The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2004;198:42–50CrossRefPubMed

34.

Patti MG, Corvera CU, Glasgow RE, et al. A hospital’s annual rate of esophagectomy influences the operative mortality rate. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 1998;2:186–192PubMed

35.

Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Cowan JA, et al. Surgical volume and quality of care for esophageal resection: do high-volume hospitals have fewer complications? Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2003;75:337–341CrossRefPubMed

36.

Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr., Ailawadi G, et al. National variation in operative mortality rates for esophageal resection and the need for quality improvement. Arch. Surg. 2003;138:1305–1309PubMed

37.

Hewitt M, Petitti D. Interpreting the Volume–Outcome Relationship in the Context of Cancer Care. Washington, DC National Academy Press, 2001

38.

Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130:415–422CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ihse I. The volume–outcome relationship in cancer surgery: a hard sell. Ann. Surg. 2003;238:777–781PubMed

40.

Finlayson SR, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN, et al. RF, Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med. Care 1999;37:204–209CrossRefPubMed

Title: Outcomes in Oncologic Surgery: Does Volume Make a Difference?
Authors: David J. Bentrem, M.D.
Murray F. Brennan, M.D.
Publication date: 01-10-2005
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: World Journal of Surgery / Issue 10/2005
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7991-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Outcomes in Oncologic Surgery: Does Volume Make a Difference?

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2005

One-stage Liver Resection for Spontaneous Rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Transabdominal Transcolonic Polypectomy

The Volume–Outcome Relationship: Don’t Believe Everything You See

Fatal Chest Injury with Lung Evisceration during Athletic Games in Ancient Greece

Management Strategies, Early Results, Benefits, and Risk Factors of Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Groin lymphadenectomy with Preservation of Femoral Fascia: Total Inguinofemoral Node Dissection for Treatment of Vulvar Carcinoma