Billingsley Kevin G, Morris Arden M, Dominitz Jason A, Matthews Barbara, Dobie Sharon, Barlow William, Wright George E, Baldwin Laura-Mae
Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Arch Surg. 2007 Jan;142(1):23-31; discussion 32. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.142.1.23.
Although numerous studies have demonstrated an association between surgical volume and improved outcome in cancer surgery, the specific structures and mechanisms of care that are associated with volume and lead to improved outcomes remain poorly defined. We hypothesize that there are modifiable surgeon and hospital characteristics that explain observed volume-outcome relationships.
Retrospective cohort study.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas.
Patients aged 66 years and older, diagnosed and surgically treated for stage I, II, or III colon cancer between 1992 and 1996 (n = 22 672).
Thirty-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative procedural interventions, including reoperation and image-guided percutaneous procedures.
Surgeon volume, but not hospital volume, is a significant predictor of postoperative procedural intervention (adjusted odds ratio for very high-volume surgeons vs low-volume surgeons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.98). In the unadjusted analyses, high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.81) and very high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.79) is associated with lower postoperative mortality. Postoperative procedural intervention is not a significant mediator of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality. A single variable-the presence of sophisticated clinical services-was the most important explanatory variable underlying the relationship between hospital volume and mortality.
Very high surgeon volume is associated with a reduction in surgical complications. However, the association between increasing hospital volume and postoperative mortality appears to derive mainly from a full spectrum of clinical services that may facilitate the prompt recognition and treatment of complications.
尽管众多研究已证明手术量与癌症手术预后改善之间存在关联,但与手术量相关且能带来更好预后的具体护理结构和机制仍不清楚。我们假设存在一些可改变的外科医生和医院特征,这些特征能够解释观察到的手术量与预后的关系。
回顾性队列研究。
监测、流行病学和最终结果癌症登记区域。
年龄在66岁及以上,于1992年至1996年间被诊断为I、II或III期结肠癌并接受手术治疗的患者(n = 22672)。
术后30天死亡率和术后30天的程序性干预措施,包括再次手术和影像引导下的经皮手术。
外科医生手术量而非医院手术量是术后程序性干预的显著预测因素(手术量极高的外科医生与手术量低的外科医生相比,校正比值比为0.79;95%置信区间为0.64 - 0.98)。在未校正分析中,医院手术量高(比值比为0.67;95%置信区间为0.56 - 0.81)和医院手术量极高(比值比为0.65;95%置信区间为0.54 - 0.79)与较低的术后死亡率相关。术后程序性干预并非医院手术量与死亡率之间关系的显著中介因素。一个单一变量——复杂临床服务的存在——是医院手术量与死亡率之间关系的最重要解释变量。
外科医生手术量极高与手术并发症减少相关。然而,医院手术量增加与术后死亡率之间的关联似乎主要源于一系列可能有助于及时识别和治疗并发症的临床服务。