Centralisation of oesophagectomy in Australia: is only caseload critical?
Richard Hummel A , Ngoc Hoang Ha A , Andrew Lord A , Markus I Trochsler A , Guy Maddern A and Harsh Kanhere A BA Department of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 8 Woodville Road, Woodville South, SA 5011, Australia. Email: richard.hummel@uksh.de; ngoc.h.ha1@gmail.com; lordsurg@chariot.net.au; Markus.Trochsler@sa.gov.au; guy.maddern@adelaide.edu.au
B Corresponding author. Email: Harsh.Kanhere@sa.gov.au
Australian Health Review 43(1) 15-20 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17095
Submitted: 24 April 2017 Accepted: 3 September 2017 Published: 16 October 2017
Abstract
Objective High caseload is considered one of the most important factors for good outcomes after high-risk surgeries such as oesophagectomy. However, many Australian centres perform low volumes of oesophagectomies due to demographics. The aim of the present study was to audit outcome after oesophagectomy in an Australian low-volume centre over a period of 13 years and to discuss potential contributors to outcome other than just case volume.
Methods Perioperative and long-term outcomes of all oesophagectomies over a 13-year period in a low-volume Australian tertiary care centre were analysed retrospectively. Data were compared in subgroups of patients in two separate time periods: 2000–05 (n = 23) and 2006–12 (n = 24).
Results There were two perioperative deaths over the entire 13-year period with no postoperative mortality in the last decade. The complication and long-term survival rates for each of the two separate time periods were similar to those from high-volume centres, more so in the second half of the study period.
Conclusions The data suggest that under specific conditions, oesophagectomies can be safely performed even in smaller- or low-volume centres in Australia. The policy of centralisation for these procedures in Australia needs to be carefully tailored to the needs of the population, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and optimal utilisation of existing facilities rather than on caseload alone.
What is known about the topic? High caseload is considered one of the most important factors for good outcomes after oesophagectomy and a driving force behind centralisation of this procedure. However, other factors may also affect outcome – such as availability of experienced surgeons, specialist nurses, interventional radiology, gastroenterology, etc.
What does this paper add? With the availability of appropriate levels of expertise, infrastructure and specialist nursing staff as is the case in most Australian tertiary centres, good perioperative outcomes can be obtained despite low volumes. Case load only should not be used as a surrogate marker of quality.
What are the implications for practitioners? The policy of centralisation for oesophagectomy in Australia needs to be carefully thought out on the basis of population demographics, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, with the appropriate use of existing facilities, rather than on a caseload basis alone.
Additional keywords: oesophagectomy, outcome.
References
[1] Mariette C, Piessen G, Triboulet JP. Therapeutic strategies in oesophageal carcinoma: role of surgery and other modalities. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8 545–53.| Therapeutic strategies in oesophageal carcinoma: role of surgery and other modalities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Lindner K, Fritz M, Haane C, Senninger N, Palmes D, Hummel R. Postoperative complications do not affect long-term outcome in esophageal cancer patients. World J Surg 2014; 38 2652–61.
| Postoperative complications do not affect long-term outcome in esophageal cancer patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Munasinghe A, Markar SR, Mamidanna R, Darzi AW, Faiz OD, Hanna GB, Low DE. Is it time to centralize high-risk cancer care in the United States? Comparison of outcomes of esophagectomy between England and the United States. Ann Surg 2015; 262 79–85.
| Is it time to centralize high-risk cancer care in the United States? Comparison of outcomes of esophagectomy between England and the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Reames BN, Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Hospital volume and operative mortality in the modern era. Ann Surg 2014; 260 244–51.
| Hospital volume and operative mortality in the modern era.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Dikken JL, Dassen AE, Lemmens VE, Putter H, Krijnen P, van der Geest L, Bosscha K, Verheij M, van de Velde CJ, Wouters MW. Effect of hospital volume on postoperative mortality and survival after oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2009. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48 1004–13.
| Effect of hospital volume on postoperative mortality and survival after oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2009.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Smith RC, Creighton N, Lord RV, Merrett ND, Keogh GW, Liauw WS, Currow DC. Survival, mortality and morbidity outcomes after oesophagogastric cancer surgery in New South Wales, 2001–2008. Med J Aust 2014; 200 408–13.
| Survival, mortality and morbidity outcomes after oesophagogastric cancer surgery in New South Wales, 2001–2008.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Migliore M, Choong CK, Lim E, Goldsmith KA, Ritchie A, Wells FC. A surgeon’s case volume of oesophagectomy for cancer strongly influences the operative mortality rate. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007; 32 375–80.
| A surgeon’s case volume of oesophagectomy for cancer strongly influences the operative mortality rate.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Santin B, Kulwicki A, Price P. Mortality rate associated with 56 consecutive esophagectomies performed at a ‘low-volume’ hospital: is procedure volume as important as we are trying to make it? J Gastrointest Surg 2008; 12 1346–50.
| Mortality rate associated with 56 consecutive esophagectomies performed at a ‘low-volume’ hospital: is procedure volume as important as we are trying to make it?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Brusselaers N, Mattsson F, Lagergren J. Hospital and surgeon volume in relation to long-term survival after oesophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2014; 63 1393–400.
| Hospital and surgeon volume in relation to long-term survival after oesophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Davies AR, Deans DA, Penman I, Plevris JN, Fletcher J, Wall L, Phillips H, Gilmour H, Patel D, de Beaux A, Paterson-Brown S. The multidisciplinary team meeting improves staging accuracy and treatment selection for gastro-esophageal cancer. Diseases of the Esophagus 2006; 19 496–503.
| The multidisciplinary team meeting improves staging accuracy and treatment selection for gastro-esophageal cancer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28njsVWqug%3D%3D&md5=116578ecde94e9d18d80d9a9c2b44768CAS |
[11] McCahill LE, May M, Morrow JB, Khandavalli S, Shabahang B, Kemmeter P, Pimiento JM. Esophagectomy outcomes at a mid-volume cancer center utilizing prospective multidisciplinary care and a 2-surgeon team approach. Am J Surg 2014; 207 380–6.
| Esophagectomy outcomes at a mid-volume cancer center utilizing prospective multidisciplinary care and a 2-surgeon team approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Beenen E, Jao W, Coulter G, Roberts R. The high volume debate in a low volume country: centralisation of oesophageal resection in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2013; 126 34–45.
[13] Kanhere HA, Trochsler MI, Kanhere MH, Lord AN, Maddern GJ. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes in a low-volume, specialised Hepato Pancreato Biliary unit. World J Surg 2014; 38 1484–90.
| Pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes in a low-volume, specialised Hepato Pancreato Biliary unit.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2czgvFWqsw%3D%3D&md5=49ff689bbf920cfb2ffbb7672a4168ccCAS |
[14] Arlow RL, Moore DF, Chen C, Langenfeld J, August DA. Outcome–volume relationships and transhiatal esophagectomy: minimizing ‘failure to rescue’. Ann Surg Innov Res 2014; 8 9
| Outcome–volume relationships and transhiatal esophagectomy: minimizing ‘failure to rescue’.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Almoudaris AM, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Vincent C, Faiz O, Hanna GB. Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England. JAMA Surg 2013; 148 272–6.
[16] Nanson EM. Synchronous combined abdomino-thoraco-cervical (oesophagectomy). Aust N Z J Surg 1975; 45 340–8.
| Synchronous combined abdomino-thoraco-cervical (oesophagectomy).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaE287htFKntQ%3D%3D&md5=0944b5ea14c3182ea1a121e35dde7dcfCAS |
[17] Varghese TK, Wood DE, Farjah F, Oelschlager BK, Symons RG, MacLeod KE, Flum DR, Pellegrini CA. Variation in esophagectomy outcomes in hospitals meeting leapfrog volume outcome standards. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 1003–10.
| Variation in esophagectomy outcomes in hospitals meeting leapfrog volume outcome standards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Gopaldas RR, Bhamidipati CM, Dao TK, Markley JG. Impact of surgeon demographics and technique on outcomes after esophageal resections: a nationwide study. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95 1064–9.
| Impact of surgeon demographics and technique on outcomes after esophageal resections: a nationwide study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery. Med Care 2011; 49 1076–81.
| Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[20] Brooke BS, Dominici F, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA, Schneider E, Pawlik TM. Variations in surgical outcomes associated with hospital compliance with safety practices. Surgery 2012; 151 651–9.
| Variations in surgical outcomes associated with hospital compliance with safety practices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[21] Markar SR, Schmidt H, Kunz S, Bodnar A, Hubka M, Low DE. Evolution of standardized clinical pathways: refining multidisciplinary care and process to improve outcomes of the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2014; 18 1238–46.
| Evolution of standardized clinical pathways: refining multidisciplinary care and process to improve outcomes of the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[22] Amaravadi RK, Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA. ICU nurse-to-patient ratio is associated with complications and resource use after esophagectomy. Intensive Care Med 2000; 26 1857–62.
| ICU nurse-to-patient ratio is associated with complications and resource use after esophagectomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7ntVCltA%3D%3D&md5=46a07852ae18fe24988524012e9dd3c3CAS |
[23] Schaible A, Sauer P, Hartwig W, Hackert T, Hinz U, Radeleff B, Büchler MW, Werner J. Radiologic versus endoscopic evaluation of the conduit after esophageal resection: a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled diagnostic study. Surg Endosc 2014; 28 2078–85.
| Radiologic versus endoscopic evaluation of the conduit after esophageal resection: a prospective, blinded, intraindividually controlled diagnostic study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[24] Schaheen L, Blackmon SH, Nason KS. Optimal approach to the management of intrathoracic esophageal leak following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Am J Surg 2014; 208 536–43.
| Optimal approach to the management of intrathoracic esophageal leak following esophagectomy: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
