ABSTRACT: This systematic review aims to assess whether overall survival, mortality, morbidity, length of stay and cost of performing oesophagectomy are related to surgical volume.
A systematic search strategy from 1997 until December 2006 was used to retrieve relevant studies. Inclusion of articles was established through application of a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus decision.
A total of 55 studies were identified of which 27 studies, representing 68 882 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one of these solely examined hospital volume, 5 examined both hospital and surgeon volume, and 1 examined surgeon volume in isolation. All but one of the studies were retrospective in nature, and because of the heterogeneity of the literature, no meta-analysis could be performed. Of the studies exploring the relationship between hospital volume and mortality, 20 reported a statistically significant benefit to large volume centres. Five of six included studies showed significant evidence for a reduced mortality risk with greater surgeon volume.
Based on the evidence from these retrospective studies, oesophagectomy performed in high volume centres would appear to be associated with better outcome compared with low volume centres.
ANZ Journal of Surgery 05/2010; 80(5):317-23. · 1.25 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Centralization aims to reduce adverse patient outcomes by concentrating complex surgical procedures in specified hospitals.
This review assessed the efficacy of centralization for knee arthroplasty by examining the relationship between hospital and surgeon volume and patient outcomes.
The systematic review identified studies using multiple databases, including Medline and Embase. Two independent researchers ensured studies met the inclusion criteria. Morbidity, mortality, length of stay, financial outcomes and statistical rigour were examined. Correlations between volume and outcome were reported.
Twelve primary knee arthroplasty studies examined hospital volume, which was significantly associated with decreased morbidity (five of seven studies), mortality (two of five studies) and length of stay (two of three studies). Three primary knee arthroplasty studies examined surgeon volume, which was significantly associated with decreased morbidity (two of three studies), mortality (zero of two studies) and length of stay (one of one study). Two revision knee arthroplasty studies examined hospital volume. One study examined but did not test for significance between hospital volume and patient morbidity; both studies examined volume and patient mortality reporting inconclusive results; and one study reported no significant association between volume and length of stay. None of the revision knee arthroplasty studies examined surgeon volume.
Significant associations between increased hospital and surgeon volume and improved patient outcomes were reported. However, when these results were separated by arthroplasty type, the association appeared tenuous. Judgements regarding centralization of knee arthroplasty should be made with caution until further evidence is published.
ANZ Journal of Surgery 04/2010; 80(4):234-41. · 1.25 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: To assess the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay and costs of radical prostatectomy (RP).
This systematic review identified relevant studies published between 1997 and June 2007. Inclusion of papers was established through application of a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by two reviewers, and a final consensus decision.
Compared with low volume hospitals, the included studies showed high volume hospitals demonstrated lower rates of mortality, postoperative complications and readmissions, and lower overall hospital costs. High volume surgeons similarly showed lower rates of postoperative complications and shorter length of stay compared with low volume surgeons, but no difference in mortality.
From the literature obtained, patients undergoing RP performed by high volume providers may have better outcomes compared to low volume providers; however, any move to centralize RP must be further evaluated.
ANZ Journal of Surgery 01/2010; 80(1-2):24-9. · 1.25 Impact Factor
Surgery 06/2009; 145(5):467-75. · 3.10 Impact Factor