A partnership model between high- And low-volume hospitals to improve results in hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 260, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 871-877

  Ravaioli, Matteo ^a   Pinna, Antonio Daniele ^a   Francioni, Gianfranco ^b   Montorsi, Marco ^c   Veneroni, Luigi ^b   Grazi, Gian Luca ^d   Palini, Gian Marco ^b   Gavazzi, Francesca ^c   Stacchini, Giacomo ^a   Ridolfi, Cristina ^c   Serenari, Matteo ^a   Zerbi, Alessandro ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b Infermi Hospital   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^d REGINA ELENA NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Complications; High And low volume center; HPB Surgery; Liver resection; Mortality; Pancreatic resection; Partnership; Postoperative outcome; Survival

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL BLEEDING; BILE DUCT CARCINOMA; BILE DUCT FISTULA; BILIARY TRACT SURGERY; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CAUSE OF DEATH; CONFERENCE PAPER; ENDOCRINE TUMOR; HEPATOPANCREATICOBILIARY SURGERY; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; LIVER CIRRHOSIS; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER FAILURE; LIVER RESECTION; LIVER SURGERY; LOW VOLUME HOSPITAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORTALITY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PANCREAS DISEASE; PANCREAS FISTULA; PANCREAS ISLET CELL TUMOR; PANCREAS PSEUDOCYST; PANCREAS RESECTION; PANCREAS SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; SURGICAL MORTALITY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COOPERATION; HIGH VOLUME HOSPITAL; ITALY; LIVER DISEASES; MULTICENTER STUDY; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; PANCREATIC DISEASES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HEPATECTOMY; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HOSPITALS, HIGH-VOLUME; HOSPITALS, LOW-VOLUME; HUMANS; ITALY; LIVER DISEASES; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PANCREATECTOMY; PANCREATIC DISEASES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; REOPERATION;

EID: 84927173701     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000975     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Cescon M, Vetrone G, Grazi GL, et al. Trends in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: Analysis of 1500 consecutive unselected cases over 20 years. Ann Surg. 2009;249:995-1002.
2. Torzilli G, Belghiti J, Kokudo N, et al. A snapshot of the effective indications and results of surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma in tertiary referral centers: Is it adherent to the EASL/AASLD recommendations? An observational study of the HCC East-West study group. Ann Surg. 2013;257:929-937.
3. LaTorre M, Nigri G, Ferrari L, et al. Hospital volume, margin status, and long term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am Surg. 2012;78:225-229.
4. Gasper WJ, Glidden DV, Jin C, et al. Has recognition of the relationship between mortality rates and hospital volume for major cancer surgery in California made a difference? A follow-up analysis of another decade. Ann Surg. 2009;250:472-483.
5. Teh SH, Diggs BS, Deveney CW, et al. Patient and hospital characteristics on the variance of perioperative outcomes for pancreatic resection in the United States: A plea for outcome-based and not volume-based referral guidelines. Arch Surg. 2009;144:713-721.
6. Tol JA, vanGulik TM, Busch OR, et al. Centralization of highly complex low volume procedures in upper gastrointestinal surgery. A summary of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Dig Surg. 2012;29:374-383.
7. Cocieru A, Saldinger PF. HPB surgery can be safely performed in a community teaching hospital. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1853-1857.
8. Chang DC, Zhang Y, Mukherjee D, et al. Variations in referral patterns to highvolume centers for pancreatic cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:720-726.
9. Monkhouse SJ, Torres-Grau J, Bawden DR, et al. Centralisation of upper GI cancer services: Is the hub quicker than the spoke? Surg Endosc. 2013;27:565- 568.
10. Nathan H, Cameron JL, Choti MA, et al. The volume-outcomes effect in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: hospital versus surgeon contributions and specificity of the relationship. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:528-538.
11. Maloney JV Jr. Itinerant surgery: At home and on the road. Ann Surg. 1984;200:115-116.
12. Constantian MB. Modern itinerant surgery: A new twist on an old demon. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:288-289.
13. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213.
14. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al.; International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: An international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8-13.
15. Ravaioli M, Ercolani G, Cescon M, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Further considerations on selection criteria. Liver Transpl. 2004;10:1195-1202.
16. Cucchetti A, Ercolani G, Vivarelli M, et al. Impact of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score on prognosis after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:966-971.
17. Balzano G, Zerbi A, Capretti G, et al. Effect of hospital volume on outcome of pancreaticoduodenectomy in Italy. Br J Surg. 2008;95:357-362.
18. Jaeck D. Ambition . . . and humility of the surgeons. Ann Surg. 2008; 248:899- 901.