Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Techniques in Coloproctology 1/2016

01.01.2016 | Original Article

Surgical Unit volume and 30-day reoperation rate following primary resection for colorectal cancer in the Veneto Region (Italy)

verfasst von: S. Pucciarelli, A. Chiappetta, G. Giacomazzo, A. Barina, N. Gennaro, M. Rebonato, D. Nitti, M. Saugo

Erschienen in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of Surgical Unit volume on the 30-day reoperation rate in patients with CRC.

Methods

Data were extracted from the regional Hospital Discharge Dataset and included patients who underwent elective resection for primary CRC in the Veneto Region (2005–2013). The primary outcome measure was any unplanned reoperation performed within 30 days from the index surgery. Independent variables were: age, gender, comorbidity, previous abdominal surgery, site and year of the resection, open/laparoscopic approach and yearly Surgical Unit volume for colorectal resections as a whole, and in detail for colonic, rectal and laparoscopic resections. Multilevel multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of variables on the outcome measure.

Results

During the study period, 21,797 elective primary colorectal resections were performed. The 30-day reoperation rate was 5.5 % and was not associated with Surgical Unit volume. In multivariate multilevel analysis, a statistically significant association was found between 30-day reoperation rate and rectal resection volume (intermediate-volume group OR 0.75; 95 % CI 0.56–0.99) and laparoscopic approach (high-volume group OR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.51–0.96).

Conclusions

While Surgical Unit volume is not a predictor of 30-day reoperation after CRC resection, it is associated with an early return to the operating room for patients operated on for rectal cancer or with a laparoscopic approach. These findings suggest that quality improvement programmes or centralization of surgery may only be required for subgroups of CRC patients.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer N (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632PubMedCrossRef Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer N (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Almoudaris AM, Burns EM, Bottle A et al (2013) Single measures of performance do not reflect overall institutional quality in colorectal cancer surgery. Gut 62:423–429PubMedCrossRef Almoudaris AM, Burns EM, Bottle A et al (2013) Single measures of performance do not reflect overall institutional quality in colorectal cancer surgery. Gut 62:423–429PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) (2012) Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. J Am Coll Surg 214:909–918CrossRef Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) (2012) Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. J Am Coll Surg 214:909–918CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Burns EM, Bottle A, Almoudaris AM et al (2013) Hierarchical multilevel analysis of increased caseload volume and postoperative outcome after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 100:1531–1538PubMedCrossRef Burns EM, Bottle A, Almoudaris AM et al (2013) Hierarchical multilevel analysis of increased caseload volume and postoperative outcome after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 100:1531–1538PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Morris AM, Baldwin L-M, Matthews B et al (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Morris AM, Baldwin L-M, Matthews B et al (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Krarup PM, Jorgensen LN, Andreasen AH, Harling H, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2012) A nationwide study on anastomotic leakage after colonic cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 14:661–667CrossRef Krarup PM, Jorgensen LN, Andreasen AH, Harling H, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2012) A nationwide study on anastomotic leakage after colonic cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 14:661–667CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Archampong D, Borowski D, Wille-Jørgensen P, Iversen LH (2012) Workload and surgeon’s specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD005391 Archampong D, Borowski D, Wille-Jørgensen P, Iversen LH (2012) Workload and surgeon’s specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD005391
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Burns EM, Mamidanna R, Currie A et al (2014) The role of caseload in determining outcome following laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: an observational study. Surg Endosc 28:134–142PubMedCrossRef Burns EM, Mamidanna R, Currie A et al (2014) The role of caseload in determining outcome following laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: an observational study. Surg Endosc 28:134–142PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E et al (2002) Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg 236:583–592PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E et al (2002) Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg 236:583–592PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional Evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMed Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional Evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Burns EM, Bottle A, Aylin P, Darzi A, Nicholls RJ, Faiz O (2011) Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics. BMJ 343:d4836PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Burns EM, Bottle A, Aylin P, Darzi A, Nicholls RJ, Faiz O (2011) Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics. BMJ 343:d4836PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Wibe A, Eriksen MT, Syse A, Tretli S, Myrvold HE, Søreide O (2005) Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. Effect of hospital caseload on long-term outcome after standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level. Br J Surg 92:217–224PubMedCrossRef Wibe A, Eriksen MT, Syse A, Tretli S, Myrvold HE, Søreide O (2005) Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. Effect of hospital caseload on long-term outcome after standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level. Br J Surg 92:217–224PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E et al (2014) Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 64:784–790PubMedCrossRef Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E et al (2014) Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 64:784–790PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Borowski DW, Kelly SB, Bradburn DM et al (2007) Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 94:880–889PubMedCrossRef Borowski DW, Kelly SB, Bradburn DM et al (2007) Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 94:880–889PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Borowski DW, Bradburn DM, Mills SJ, Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group (NORCCAG) et al (2010) Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes. Br J Surg 97:1416–1430PubMedCrossRef Borowski DW, Bradburn DM, Mills SJ, Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group (NORCCAG) et al (2010) Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes. Br J Surg 97:1416–1430PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, Pross M, Gastinger I, Lippert H (2001) Hospital caseload and the results achieved inpatients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:1397–1402PubMedCrossRef Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, Pross M, Gastinger I, Lippert H (2001) Hospital caseload and the results achieved inpatients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:1397–1402PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2001) Effect of caseload on the short-term outcome of colon surgery: results of a multicenter study. Int J Colorectal Dis 16:362–369PubMedCrossRef Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2001) Effect of caseload on the short-term outcome of colon surgery: results of a multicenter study. Int J Colorectal Dis 16:362–369PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Harling H, Bülow S, Møller LN, Jørgensen T, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2005) Hospital volume and outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark 1994–1999. Colorectal Dis 7:90–95PubMedCrossRef Harling H, Bülow S, Møller LN, Jørgensen T, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (2005) Hospital volume and outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark 1994–1999. Colorectal Dis 7:90–95PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Kressner M, Bohe M, Cedermark B et al (2009) The impact of hospital volume on surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1542–1549PubMedCrossRef Kressner M, Bohe M, Cedermark B et al (2009) The impact of hospital volume on surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1542–1549PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Masoomi H, Mills SD et al (2014) Outcomes of conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery. JSLS 18 pii:e2014.00230 Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Masoomi H, Mills SD et al (2014) Outcomes of conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery. JSLS 18 pii:e2014.00230
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M (2008) Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg 247:819–824PubMedCrossRef Delaney CP, Chang E, Senagore AJ, Broder M (2008) Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann Surg 247:819–824PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Faiz O, Warusavitarne J, Bottle A, Tekkis PP, Darzi AW, Kennedy RH (2009) Laparoscopically assisted vs. open elective colonic and rectal resection: a comparison of outcomes in English National Health Service Trusts between 1996 and 2006. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1695–1704PubMedCrossRef Faiz O, Warusavitarne J, Bottle A, Tekkis PP, Darzi AW, Kennedy RH (2009) Laparoscopically assisted vs. open elective colonic and rectal resection: a comparison of outcomes in English National Health Service Trusts between 1996 and 2006. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1695–1704PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Merkow RP et al (2008) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open colectomy for cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes from 121 hospitals. J Gastrointest Surg 12:2001–2009PubMedCrossRef Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Merkow RP et al (2008) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open colectomy for cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes from 121 hospitals. J Gastrointest Surg 12:2001–2009PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Müller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20:CD003145 Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Müller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20:CD003145
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Damle RN, Macomber CW, Flahive JM et al (2014) Surgeon volume and elective resection for colon cancer: an analysis of outcomes and use of laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 218:1223–1230PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Damle RN, Macomber CW, Flahive JM et al (2014) Surgeon volume and elective resection for colon cancer: an analysis of outcomes and use of laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 218:1223–1230PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Garout M, Tilney HS, Tekkis PP, Aylin P (2008) Comparison of administrative data with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) colorectal cancer database. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:155–163PubMedCrossRef Garout M, Tilney HS, Tekkis PP, Aylin P (2008) Comparison of administrative data with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) colorectal cancer database. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:155–163PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R et al (2012) Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health (Oxf) 34:138–148CrossRef Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R et al (2012) Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health (Oxf) 34:138–148CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Almoudaris AM, Burns EM, Mamidanna R et al (2011) Value of failure to rescue as a marker of the standard of care following reoperation for complications after colorectal resection. Br J Surg 98:1775–1783PubMedCrossRef Almoudaris AM, Burns EM, Mamidanna R et al (2011) Value of failure to rescue as a marker of the standard of care following reoperation for complications after colorectal resection. Br J Surg 98:1775–1783PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME et al (2013) Validity and feasibility of the American College of Surgeons colectomy composite outcome quality measure. Ann Surg 257:483–489PubMedCrossRef Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME et al (2013) Validity and feasibility of the American College of Surgeons colectomy composite outcome quality measure. Ann Surg 257:483–489PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Mamidanna R, Burns EM, Bottle A et al (2012) Reduced risk of medical morbidity and mortality in patients selected for laparoscopic colorectal resection in England: a population-based study. Arch Surg 147:219–227PubMedCrossRef Mamidanna R, Burns EM, Bottle A et al (2012) Reduced risk of medical morbidity and mortality in patients selected for laparoscopic colorectal resection in England: a population-based study. Arch Surg 147:219–227PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Mamidanna R, Eid-Arimoku L, Almoudaris AM et al (2012) Poor 1-year survival in elderly patients undergoing nonelective colorectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 55:788–796PubMedCrossRef Mamidanna R, Eid-Arimoku L, Almoudaris AM et al (2012) Poor 1-year survival in elderly patients undergoing nonelective colorectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 55:788–796PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Nachiappan S, Burns EM, Faiz O (2013) Validity and Feasibility of the American College of Surgeons Colectomy composite outcome quality measure. Ann Surg 261:e158CrossRef Nachiappan S, Burns EM, Faiz O (2013) Validity and Feasibility of the American College of Surgeons Colectomy composite outcome quality measure. Ann Surg 261:e158CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Renzulli P, Laffer UT (2005) Learning curve: the surgeon as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer surgery. Recent Results Cancer Res 165:86–104PubMedCrossRef Renzulli P, Laffer UT (2005) Learning curve: the surgeon as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer surgery. Recent Results Cancer Res 165:86–104PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Eng J Med 361:1368–1375CrossRef Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2009) Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Eng J Med 361:1368–1375CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Howell AM, Panesar SS, Burns EM, Donaldson LJ, Darzi A (2014) Reducing the burden of surgical harm: a systematic review of the interventions used to reduce adverse events in surgery. Ann Surg 259:630–641PubMedCrossRef Howell AM, Panesar SS, Burns EM, Donaldson LJ, Darzi A (2014) Reducing the burden of surgical harm: a systematic review of the interventions used to reduce adverse events in surgery. Ann Surg 259:630–641PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Surgical Unit volume and 30-day reoperation rate following primary resection for colorectal cancer in the Veneto Region (Italy)
verfasst von
S. Pucciarelli
A. Chiappetta
G. Giacomazzo
A. Barina
N. Gennaro
M. Rebonato
D. Nitti
M. Saugo
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2016
Verlag
Springer Milan
Erschienen in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Elektronische ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1388-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Techniques in Coloproctology 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

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

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.