Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Erschienen in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 11/2009

01.11.2009 | 2009 SSAT Plenary Presentation

National Trends in Esophageal Surgery—Are Outcomes as Good as We Believe?

verfasst von: Geoffrey Paul Kohn, Joseph Anton Galanko, Michael Owen Meyers, Richard Harry Feins, Timothy Michael Farrell

Erschienen in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Ausgabe 11/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Positive volume–outcome relationships in esophagectomy have prompted support for regionalization of care; however, outcomes have not recently been analyzed. This study examines national trends in provision of esophagectomy and reassesses the volume–outcome relationship in light of changing practice patterns and training paradigms.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from 1998 to 2006. Quantification of patients’ comorbidities was made using the Charlson Index. Using logistic regression modeling, institutions’ annual case volumes were correlated with risk-adjusted outcomes over time, as well as presence or absence of fellowship and residency training programs.

Results

A nationwide total of 57,676 esophagectomies were recorded. In-hospital unadjusted mortality fell from 12% to 7%. Adjusting for comorbidities, greater esophagectomy volume was associated with improvements in the incidence of most measured complications, though mortality increased once greater than 100 cases were performed. Hospitals supporting fellowship training or a surgical residency program did not have higher rates of mortality or total complications.

Conclusions

The current national mortality rate of 7% following esophagectomy is higher than is reported in most contemporary case series. A greater annual esophagectomy volume improves outcomes, but only up to a point. Current training paradigms are safe.
Literatur
1.
Trivers KF, Sabatino SA, Stewart SL. Trends in esophageal cancer incidence by histology, United States, 1998–2003. Int J Cancer 2008;123(6):1422–1428.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Feuer EJ, Huang L, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Lewis DR, Eisner MP, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2006. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute. http://​seer.​cancer.​gov/​csr/​1975_​2006/​, based on November 2008 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2009.
3.
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2005 Incidence and Mortality Web-Based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, 2009. Available at: www.​cdc.​gov/​uscs.
4.
Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC et al. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 1979;301(25):1364–3649.PubMed
5.
Miller JD, Jain MK, de Gara CJ et al. Effect of surgical experience on results of esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 1997;65(1):20–21.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM et al. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg 1998;228(1):71–78.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN et al. Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 1999;125(3):250–256.PubMed
8.
Pal N, Axisa B, Yusof S et al. Volume and outcome for major upper GI surgery in England. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12(2):353–357.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Alderson D. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 87—the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008;20(7):530–531.
10.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: esophageal cancer. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2009.
11.
The Leapfrog Group. Evidence-Based Hospital Referral (EBHR) and Common Acute Conditions (CACs) Coding Specifications for Volume v5.1.1. Washington, DC: The Leapfrog Group, 2008.
12.
13.
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery 2004;135(6):569–575.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Allareddy V, Konety BR. Specificity of procedure volume and in-hospital mortality association. Ann Surg 2007;246(1):135–139.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Betensky RA et al. The Leapfrog volume criteria may fall short in identifying high-quality surgical centers. Ann Surg 2003;238(4):447–455. discussion 455–7.PubMed
16.
van Lanschot JJ, Hulscher JB, Buskens CJ et al. Hospital volume and hospital mortality for esophagectomy. Cancer 2001;91(8):1574–1578.CrossRefPubMed
17.
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(12):1305–1309.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346(15):1128–1137.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Forshaw MJ, Gossage JA, Stephens J et al. Centralisation of oesophagogastric cancer services: can specialist units deliver? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006;88(6):566–570.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Migliore M, Choong CK, Lim E et al. A surgeon’s case volume of oesophagectomy for cancer strongly influences the operative mortality rate. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;32(2):375–380.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Yannopoulos P, Theodoridis P, Manes K. Esophagectomy without thoracotomy: 25 years of experience over 750 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2009;394:611–616.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Decker G, Coosemans W, De Leyn P et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;35(1):13–20. discussion 20–1.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Collins G, Johnson E, Kroshus T et al. Experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2006;20(2):298–301.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF et al. Predictive factors for postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg 2004;240(5):791–800.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Metzger R, Bollschweiler E, Vallbohmer D et al. High volume centers for esophagectomy: what is the number needed to achieve low postoperative mortality? Dis Esophagus 2004;17(4):310–314.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ et al. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 1998;280(20):1747–1751.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dimick JB, Cattaneo SM, Lipsett PA et al. Hospital volume is related to clinical and economic outcomes of esophageal resection in Maryland. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72(2):334–339. discussion 339–41.CrossRefPubMed
28.
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(2):186–192.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kuo EY, Chang Y, Wright CD. Impact of hospital volume on clinical and economic outcomes for esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72(4):1118–11124.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Upchurch GR Jr et al. National trends in outcomes for esophageal resection. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79(1):212–216. discussion 217–8.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Rohatgi A, Sutcliffe R, Forshaw MJ et al. Training in oesophageal surgery—the gold standard: a prospective study. Int J Surg 2008;6(3):230–233.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 1998–2006 [database online]. Insert City of Publication Here see notes: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
39.
Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS. Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA 2005;294(15):1909–1917.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 87—the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer: A national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN, 2006.
41.
Kohn GP, Galanko JA, Overby DW et al. Volume–outcome relationships and other influences of outcome in bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 2009;23(S1):149.
42.
Urbach DR, Austin PC. Conventional models overestimate the statistical significance of volume–outcome associations, compared with multilevel models. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(4):391–400.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130(3):415–422.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Muller JM, Erasmi H, Stelzner M et al. Surgical therapy of oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1990;77(8):845–857.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Whooley BP, Law S, Murthy SC et al. Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 2001;233(3):338–344.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Gananadha S, Hazebroek EJ, Leibman S et al. The utility of FDG-PET in the preoperative staging of esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2008;21(5):389–394.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Tomaszek S, Cassivi SD. Esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2009;38(1):169–181. x.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Wouters MW, Wijnhoven BP, Karim-Kos HE et al. High-volume versus low-volume for esophageal resections for cancer: the essential role of case-mix adjustments based on clinical data. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15(1):80–87.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Rodgers M, Jobe BA, O’Rourke RW et al. Case volume as a predictor of inpatient mortality after esophagectomy. Arch Surg 2007;142(9):829–839.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Leigh Y, Goldacre M, McCulloch P. Surgical specialty, surgical unit volume and mortality after oesophageal cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:820–825.PubMed
51.
Quan H, Li B, Saunders LD et al. Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database. Health Serv Res 2008;43(4):1424–1441.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lacasse Y, Montori VM, Maltais F. Administrative database: validity of recording vs. validity of diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59(1):104. author reply 104–5.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Kohn GP, Galanko JA, Overby DW et al. Recent trends in bariatric surgery case volume in the United States. Surgery 2009;146(2):375–380.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
National Trends in Esophageal Surgery—Are Outcomes as Good as We Believe?
verfasst von
Geoffrey Paul Kohn
Joseph Anton Galanko
Michael Owen Meyers
Richard Harry Feins
Timothy Michael Farrell
Publikationsdatum
01.11.2009
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Ausgabe 11/2009
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Elektronische ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-009-1008-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2009

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 11/2009 Zur Ausgabe

SSAT/AHPBA Joint Symposium

Unexpected Identification of Gallbladder Carcinoma During Cholecystectomy

2009 SSAT Quick Shot Presentation

Predicting Major Complications after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Simple Risk Score

2009 SSAT Plenary Presentation

The Relationship Between the Local and Systemic Inflammatory Responses and Survival in Patients Undergoing Curative Surgery for Colon and Rectal Cancers

2009 SSAT Plenary Presentation

Margin Positive Pancreaticoduodenectomy Is Superior to Palliative Bypass in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

2009 SSAT Poster Presentation

Circulating Cytokeratin 18 Fragment M65—A Potential Marker of Malignancy in Colorectal Cancer Patients

2008 SSAT Other

A Standardized Technique for Laparoscopic Rectal Resection

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.