Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of surgical experience on management and outcome of pancreatic surgery performed in high- and low-volume centers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is one of the procedures in general surgery with the highest rate of life-threatening complications. The positive impact of the volume–outcome ratio on outcomes and mortality in pancreatic surgery (PS) has led to policy-level efforts toward centralization of care for PS that is currently under evaluation by some Regional Health Services. The role of the surgeon’s experience and training is still under debate. The aim of this paper is to compare the outcomes of PS by the same surgeon in a high volume (HV) and in a low volume (LV) hospital to assess whether a specific training in PS could outdo the benefits of hospital volume. 124 pancreatic resections (98 PD) were conducted by a single surgeon from 2004 to 2014 in two different Italian hospitals with different PS volumes as well as in general surgical activities. The results were retrospectively analyzed. All data regarding demographics, oncological characteristics, surgical parameters and post-operative outcomes were compared between patients operated on in the HV (group A) and LV hospital (group B). The surgical experience in the LV hospital has been then divided into a first period (group B1) and in a second period (group B2). χ 2 test or Fisher’s exact test (when variables were dichotomous) was used. The unpaired t test was used to compare continuous data between the two groups. Values are expressed as n. of cases (percent) for categorical data or as mean (standard deviation) for continuous data. A p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant. From 2004 to 2014, 124 patients underwent pancreatic resection by the same surgeon: 69 in an HV hospital (group A) and 55 in an LV hospital (group B). We focused our attention on PD outcomes, 54 in group A and 44 in group B (22 in group B1 and 22 in group B2, accordingly to the aforementioned criteria). A higher incidence of ASA 3 patients, although not statistically significant, was found in group B than in group A (34 vs. 18%; p = 0.064). With regard to post-operative outcome between group A and B, no statistical differences were found in mortality rate (4 vs 7% p = n.s.), morbidity rate (overall, medical and surgical), Clavien–Dindo complications grade, reoperation rate, pancreatic fistula rate and grade, and post-operative length of stay. Oncologically, there were no differences in lymph nodes retrieval between the two groups. With regard to comparison between the two LV hospital groups, mortality rate was nearly significantly higher in group B1 than in group B2 (14 vs. 0%; p = 0.073), whereas no differences were found in the comparison between group A (4%) and group B2 (0%) (p = n.s.). A previous surgical experience in an HV hospital overcomes or reduces the differences in the outcome of pancreatic surgery reported in the literature between HV and LV hospitals. There was a time-related improvement trend in terms of post-operative mortality in the LV, probably related to the accustomedness and skills in managing severe complications related to PS. The surgeon’s experience together with the selection of patients, the availability of resources and the development of team experience at LV hospital are probably important variables which can overcome hospital volume and should, therefore, be taken into account in PS accreditation programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amato L, Colais P, Davoli M, Ferroni E, Fusco D, Minozzi S, Moirano F, Sciattella P, Vecchi S, Ventura M, Perucci CA (2013) Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of italian hospital data. Epidemiol Prev 37(2–3 Suppl 2):1–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balzano G, Zerbi A, Capretti G, Rocchetti S, Capitanio V, Di Carlo V (2008) Effect of hospital volume on outcome of pancreaticoduodenectomy in Italy. Br J Surg 95(3):357–362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schneider EB, Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Hirose K, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL, Ahuja N, Weiss M, Pawlik TM (2014) Hospital volume and patients outcomes in hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery: is assessing differences in mortality enough? J Gastrointest Surg 18(12):2105–2115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Avritscher EB, Cooksley CD, Rolston KV, Swint JM, Delclos GL, Franzini L, Swisher SG, Walsh GL, Mansfield PF, Elting LS (2014) Serious postoperative infections following resection of common solid tumors: outcomes, costs, and impact of hospital surgical volume. Support Care Cancer 22(2):527–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN, Sharp SM, Warshaw AL, Fisher ES (1999) Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 125(3):250–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alsfasser G, Kittner J, Eisold S, Klar E (2012) Volume–outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery: the situation in Germany. Surgery 152(3 Suppl 1):S50–S55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Simunovic M, Urbach D, Major D, Sutradhar R, Baxter N, To T, Brown A, Davis D, Levine MN (2010) Assessing the volume–outcome hypothesis and region-level quality improvement interventions: pancreas cancer surgery in two Canadian Provinces. Ann Surg Oncol 17(10):2537–2544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ho V, Aloia T (2008) Hospital volume, surgeon volume, and patient costs for cancer surgery. Med Care 46(7):718–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Topal B, Van de Sande S, Fieuws S, Penninckx F (2007) Effect of centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on nationwide hospital mortality and length of stay. Br J Surg 94(11):1377–1381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M, International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN, Sharp SM, Warshaw AL, Fisher ES (1999) Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 125(3):250–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pecorelli N, Balzano G, Capretti G, Zerbi A, Di Carlo V, Braga M (2012) Effect of surgeonvolume on outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high-volume hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 16(3):518–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Enomoto LM, Gusani NJ, Dillon PW, Hollenbeak CS (2014) Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on mortality, length of stay, and cost of pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):690–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mackenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkever DS, Weir S, Scharfstein DO (2007) The National Study on Costs and Outcomes of Trauma. J Trauma 63(6 Suppl):S54–S67 (discussion S81–6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shackford SR, Mackersie RC, Davis JW, Wolf PL, Hoyt DB (1989) Epidemiology and pathology of traumatic deaths occurring at a Level I Trauma Center in a regionalized system: the importance of secondary brain injury. J Trauma 29(10):1392–1397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch HG, Wennberg DE (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346(15):1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Finlayson EV, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer JD (2003) Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. Arch Surg 138(7):721–725 (discussion 726)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF (1998) Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 280(20):1747–1751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. vanHeek NT, Kuhlmann KF, Scholten RJ, de Castro SM, Busch OR, van Gulik TM, Obertop H, Gouma DJ (2005) Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 242(6):781–788 (discussion 788–90)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, McPhee JT, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2009) Surgeon volume impacts hospital mortality for pancreatic resection. Ann Surg 249:635–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmidt CM, Turrini O, Parikh P, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Howard TJ, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD (2010) Effect of hospitalvolume, surgeonexperience, and surgeonvolume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience. Arch Surg 145(7):634–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosemurgy AS, Bloomston M, Serafini FM, Coon B, Murr MM, Carey LC (2001) Frequency with which surgeons undertake pancreaticoduodenectomy determines length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 5(1):21–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosemurgy A, Cowgill S, Coe B, Thomas A, Al-Saadi S, Goldin S et al (2008) Frequency with which surgeons undertake pancreaticoduodenectomy continues to determine length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 12(3):442–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nathan H, Cameron JL, Choti MA, Schulick RD, Pawlik TM (2009) The volume–outcomes effect in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: hospital versus surgeon contributions and specificity of the relationship. J Am Coll Surg 208(4):528–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, Brennan MF (1995) Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 222(5):638–645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ravaioli M, Pinna AD, Francioni G, Montorsi M, Veneroni L, Grazi GL, Palini GM, Gavazzi F, Stacchini G, Ridolfi C, Serenari M, Zerbi A (2014) A partnership model between high- and low-volume hospitals to improveresults in hepatobiliarypancreaticsurgery. Ann Surg 260(5):871–875 (discussion 875–7)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kanhere HA, Trochsler MI, Kanhere MH, Lord AN, Maddern GJ (2014) Pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes in a low-volume, specialised hepatopancreato biliary unit. World J Surg 38(6):1484–1490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clark W, Hernandez J, McKeon BA, Kahn A, Morton C, Toomey P, Mullinax J, Ross S, Rosemurgy A (2010) Surgery residency training programmes have greater impact on outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy than hospital volume or surgeon frequency. HPB (Oxford) 12(1):68–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schell MT, Barcia A, Spitzer AL, Harris HW (2008) Pancreaticoduodenectomy: volume is not associated with outcome within an academic health care system. HPB Surg 2008:825940

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Capretti G, Balzano G, Stella M, GianottiL, Zerbi A, Di Carlo V (2015) Management and outcome of pancreatic resections performed in high and low volume centers by surgeons sharing the same mentor: The importance of training. Submitted to 11th E-AHPBA congress, Manchester

  32. Pawlik TM, Tanabe KK (2007) Is it ethical to send patients to low-volume hospitals for cancer surgery? Virtual Mentor 9(1):44–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bassi C (2016) Surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it. A proposal for esophageal, hepatic, pancreatic and colo-rectal surgery. Editorial. Updates Surg 68:115–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bassi C, Balzano P, Zerbi A, Ramera M (2016) Pancreatic surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it. Position Paper Updates Surg 68:117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Capretti G, Balzano P, Gianotti L Stella M., Ferrari G, Baccari P, Zuliani W, Braga M, Zerbi A Management and outcomes of pancreatic resections performed in high-volume referral and low-volume community hospitals lead by surgeons who shared the same mentor: the importance of training. Dig Surg (in press)

  36. Gentile D, Bissolati M, Arriciati A, Stella M (2016) Surgical outcomes of single loop vs double loop reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy (dcp). Congr AISP, Rome

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, San Carlo Borromeo Hospital, Via Pio II 3, 20153, Milan, Italy

    Marco Stella, Daniele Gentile & Alessandro Arriciati

  2. Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Massimiliano Bissolati

Authors
  1. Marco Stella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimiliano Bissolati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniele Gentile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Arriciati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Stella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stella, M., Bissolati, M., Gentile, D. et al. Impact of surgical experience on management and outcome of pancreatic surgery performed in high- and low-volume centers. Updates Surg 69, 351–358 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0422-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0422-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation