Influence of national centralization of oesophagogastric cancer on management and clinical outcome from emergency upper gastrointestinal conditions. BJS 2018; 105: 113-120.
Published: 20th November 2017
Authors: S. R. Markar, H. Mackenzie, T. Wiggins, A. Askari, A. Karthikesalingam, O. Faiz et al.
In England in 2001 oesophagogastric cancer surgery was centralized. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether centralization of oesophagogastric cancer to high‐volume centres has had an effect on mortality from different emergency upper gastrointestinal conditions.
The Hospital Episode Statistics database was used to identify patients admitted to hospitals in England (1997–2012). The influence of oesophagogastric high‐volume cancer centre status (20 or more resections per year) on 30‐ and 90‐day mortality from oesophageal perforation, paraoesophageal hernia and perforated peptic ulcer was analysed.
Over the study interval, 3707, 12 441 and 56 822 patients with oesophageal perforation, paraoesophageal hernia and perforated peptic ulcer respectively were included. There was a passive centralization to high‐volume cancer centres for oesophageal perforation (26·9 per cent increase), paraoesophageal hernia (19·5 per cent increase) and perforated peptic ulcer (23·0 per cent increase). Management of oesophageal perforation in high‐volume centres was associated with a reduction in 30‐day (HR 0·58, 95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·74) and 90‐day (HR 0·62, 0·49 to 0·77) mortality. High‐volume cancer centre status did not affect mortality from paraoesophageal hernia or perforated peptic ulcer. Annual emergency admission volume thresholds at which mortality improved were observed for oesophageal perforation (5 patients) and paraoesophageal hernia (11). Following centralization, the proportion of patients managed in high‐volume cancer centres that reached this volume threshold was 88·0 per cent for oesophageal perforation, but only 30·3 per cent for paraoesophageal hernia.
Centralization of low incidence conditions such as oesophageal perforation to high‐volume cancer centres provides a greater level of expertise and ultimately reduces mortality.Read more
You may also be interested in
Relationship between intraoperative non‐technical performance and technical events in bariatric surgery.
Authors: A. B. Fecso, S. S. Kuzulugil, C. Babaoglu, A. B. Bener, T. P. Grantcharov
Notes: Ways to assess team performance
Cardiopulmonary fitness before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric cancer.
Authors: M. Navidi, A. W. Phillips, S. M. Griffin, K. E. Duffield, A. Greystoke, K. Sumpter et al.
Notes: Chemotherapy reduces cardiopulmonary reserve
Randomized clinical trial
Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 502-511.
Authors: K. Valkenet, J. C. A. Trappenburg, J. P. Ruurda, E. M. Guinan, J. V. Reynolds, P. Nafteux et al.
Notes: Increased muscle function, no better outcome
Population‐based cohort study of surgical myotomy and pneumatic dilatation as primary interventions for oesophageal achalasia.
Authors: S. R. Markar, H. Mackenzie, A. Askari, O. Faiz, J. Hoare, G. Zaninotto et al.
Notes: Less reinterventions after surgical myotomy
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of stent type in endoscopic treatment of gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 570-577.
Authors: C. Cosse, L. Rebibo, F. Brazier, S. Hakim, R. Delcenserie, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: Double pigtail is better
Using textbook outcome as a measure of quality of care in oesophagogastric cancer surgery. BJS 2018; 105: 561-569.
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, M. V. de Rooij, F. van Coevorden, F. E. M. Voncken, P. Snaebjornsson, H. Boot et al.
Notes: Quality of care in one number
[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and prediction of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction. BJS 2018; 105: 419-428.
Authors: T. Harustiak, M. Zemanova, P. Fencl, L. Hornofova, A. Pazdro, M. Snajdauf et al.
Notes: Of no use
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 339-349.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 552-560.
Authors: J. A. H. Gooszen, L. Goense, S. S. Gisbertz, J. P. Ruurda, R. van Hillegersberg, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen et al.
Notes: Lower leak rates after intrathoracic anastomosis
Meta‐analysis of metabolic surgery versus medical treatment for microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BJS 2018; 105: 168-181.
Authors: A. T. Billeter, K. M. Scheurlen, P. Probst, S. Eichel, F. Nickel, S. Kopf et al.
Notes: Surgery is better
Health‐related quality of life after open transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 230-236.
Authors: J. H. Kauppila, A. Johar, J. A. Gossage, A. R. Davies, J. Zylstra, J. Lagergren et al.
Notes: Favours transhiatal
Patient‐derived organoid models help define personalized management of gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e48-e60.
Authors: M. R. Aberle, R. A. Burkhart, H. Tiriac, S. W. M. Olde Damink, C. H. C. Dejong, D. A. Tuveson et al.
Notes: Accelerating the science of personal care