• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Regionalization of thoracic surgery improves short-term cancer esophagectomy outcomes.胸外科区域化可改善食管癌切除术的短期疗效。
J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(5):1867-1878. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.05.30.
2
Effect of Thoracic Surgery Regionalization on 1- and 3-Year Survival after Cancer Esophagectomy.胸外科区域化对食管癌切除术后1年和3年生存率的影响。
Ann Surg. 2023 Feb 1;277(2):e305-e312. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005076. Epub 2023 Jan 10.
3
Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive esophagectomy portends worse short-term outcomes: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.微创食管切除术中转开胸手术预示着更差的短期结局:国家癌症数据库分析。
Surg Endosc. 2020 Aug;34(8):3470-3478. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07124-y. Epub 2019 Oct 7.
4
Effect of thoracic surgery regionalization on long-term survival after lung cancer resection.胸外科区域化对肺癌切除术后长期生存的影响。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Mar;163(3):769-777. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.03.050. Epub 2021 Mar 20.
5
Variation in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome of Esophageal Cancer in a Regionalized Care System in Ontario, Canada.加拿大安大略省区域性照护体系中食管癌的诊断、治疗和结局的差异。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Sep 1;4(9):e2126090. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26090.
6
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database.微创与开放食管癌切除术治疗食管癌:来自胸外科医师协会国家数据库的早期手术结果比较
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Apr;101(4):1281-8; discussion 1288-9. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.095. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
7
Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery.外科医生达到 Leapfrog 复杂肿瘤手术量标准后,手术结果的变化。
Cancer. 2021 Nov 1;127(21):4059-4071. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33766. Epub 2021 Jul 22.
8
Outcomes of robotic esophagectomies for esophageal cancer by hospital volume: an analysis of the national cancer database.医院手术量对食管癌机器人切除术效果的影响:国家癌症数据库分析。
Surg Endosc. 2021 Jul;35(7):3802-3810. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07875-z. Epub 2020 Aug 12.
9
Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy provides superior surgical resection.机器人辅助微创食管切除术可实现更优质的手术切除效果。
Surg Endosc. 2021 Nov;35(11):6329-6334. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08120-3. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
10
Impact of surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.外科医生专业对食管癌切除术治疗癌症的临床结果的影响。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Nov;37(11):8309-8315. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10391-5. Epub 2023 Sep 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Travel to High-Volume Centers and Survival After Esophagectomy for Cancer.前往高容量医疗中心就医与食管癌切除术后的生存情况
JAMA Surg. 2025 Jan 1;160(1):19-27. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5009.
2
Recognizing the Role for Conversion Therapy in Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer (ESCC): A Call for Future Study.认识转化治疗在转移性食管鳞状细胞癌(ESCC)中的作用:呼吁开展未来研究。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Jan;32(1):24-26. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-16335-0. Epub 2024 Oct 7.
3
The impact of minimally-invasive esophagectomy operative duration on post-operative outcomes.微创食管切除术手术时长对术后结局的影响。
Front Surg. 2024 Feb 19;11:1348942. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1348942. eCollection 2024.
4
Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Curative Intent Esophageal Cancer Resection Patients: Real-World Experience within an Integrated Health System.根治性食管癌切除患者的辅助免疫治疗:综合医疗系统中的真实世界经验
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Nov 7;15(22):5317. doi: 10.3390/cancers15225317.
5
Assessment of a collaborative treatment model for trimodal management of esophageal cancer.食管癌三联治疗协作治疗模式的评估
J Thorac Dis. 2023 Sep 28;15(9):4668-4680. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-346. Epub 2023 Aug 25.
6
Defining Volume Targets for Regionalization of Pancreaticoduodenectomy, Esophagectomy, and Major Lung Resection Centers to Improve Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes.定义胰腺十二指肠切除术、食管癌切除术和主要肺切除术中心的区域化目标,以改善肿瘤学和手术结果。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Jan;31(1):499-513. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14339-w. Epub 2023 Sep 27.
7
Role of intraoperative processes of care during major upper gastrointestinal oncological resection in postoperative outcomes: a scoping review protocol.重大上消化道肿瘤切除术中护理流程对术后结局的作用:范围综述方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 4;13(7):e068339. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068339.
8
Improving outcomes in malignant pleural mesothelioma in an integrated health care system.在综合医疗保健系统中改善恶性胸膜间皮瘤的治疗效果。
J Thorac Dis. 2022 Sep;14(9):3352-3363. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-427.
9
Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.微创与机器人辅助食管癌切除术的疗效
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jul 28;14(15):3667. doi: 10.3390/cancers14153667.
10
Evaluation of oesophageal and gastric resection outcomes in a small-volume unit.小容量单位食管和胃切除术结果的评估
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Jun 11;67:102499. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102499. eCollection 2021 Jul.

本文引用的文献

1
Operative time in esophagectomy: Does it affect outcomes?食管癌切除术的手术时间:它会影响结果吗?
Surgery. 2018 Oct;164(4):866-871. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.06.020. Epub 2018 Aug 16.
2
Changes in volume, clinical practice and outcome after reorganisation of oesophago-gastric cancer care in England: A longitudinal observational study.英国调整胃食管交界癌诊疗服务后的容量变化、临床实践和结局:一项纵向观察性研究。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Apr;44(4):524-531. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.001. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
3
Changes in treatment and outcome of oesophageal cancer in Denmark between 2004 and 2013.丹麦 2004 年至 2013 年期间食管癌治疗和结局的变化。
Br J Surg. 2017 Sep;104(10):1338-1345. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10586. Epub 2017 Jul 18.
4
Characterizing the role of a high-volume cancer resection ecosystem on low-volume, high-quality surgical care.描述高容量癌症切除生态系统在低容量、高质量手术治疗中的作用。
Surgery. 2016 Oct;160(4):839-849. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.07.002. Epub 2016 Aug 11.
5
Prognostic Impact of Postoperative Morbidity After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Exploratory Analysis of JCOG9907.食管癌切除术术后并发症对预后的影响:JCOG9907 的探索性分析。
Ann Surg. 2017 Jun;265(6):1152-1157. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001828.
6
Predictors of Major Morbidity or Mortality After Resection for Esophageal Cancer: A Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database Risk Adjustment Model.食管癌切除术后严重并发症或死亡的预测因素:一项胸外科医师协会普通胸外科数据库风险调整模型
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jul;102(1):207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.04.055. Epub 2016 May 28.
7
Does minimally invasive oesophagectomy provide a benefit in hospital length of stay when compared with open oesophagectomy?与开放性食管切除术相比,微创食管切除术在缩短住院时间方面是否具有优势?
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;22(3):360-7. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv339. Epub 2015 Dec 15.
8
Outcomes With Open and Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Therapy.新辅助治疗后开放与微创Ivor Lewis食管癌切除术的疗效
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;101(3):1097-103. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.062. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
9
The Impact of Postoperative Complications on Survivals After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.术后并发症对食管癌食管切除术后生存率的影响。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Aug;94(33):e1369. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001369.
10
Pattern of Postoperative Mortality After Esophageal Cancer Resection According to Center Volume: Results from a Large European Multicenter Study.根据中心手术量分析食管癌切除术后的死亡率模式:一项大型欧洲多中心研究的结果
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Aug;22(8):2615-23. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4310-5. Epub 2015 Jan 21.

胸外科区域化可改善食管癌切除术的短期疗效。

Regionalization of thoracic surgery improves short-term cancer esophagectomy outcomes.

作者信息

Ely Sora, Alabaster Amy, Ashiku Simon K, Patel Ashish, Velotta Jeffrey B

机构信息

UCSF East Bay Surgery, Oakland, CA, USA.

Oakland Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA, USA.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(5):1867-1878. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.05.30.

DOI:10.21037/jtd.2019.05.30
PMID:31285879
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6588736/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Some studies have found that outcomes from cancer esophagectomy are better at higher-volume centers than at lower-volume centers. Reports on outcomes following systematic centralization have largely demonstrated subsequent improvements, but these originate in nationalized healthcare systems that are not very comparable to the heterogeneous private-payer systems that predominate in the United States. We examined how regionalization of thoracic surgery to Centers of Excellence (CoE) within our American integrated healthcare system changed overall care for our patients, and whether it changed outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 461 consecutive patients undergoing cancer esophagectomy between 2009-2016, spanning the 2014 shift to regionalization. High-volume was defined as ≥5 esophagectomies per year. We compared characteristics of the surgeon, hospital, and operation pre- and post-regionalization using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for age. We evaluated their associations with patient outcomes with hierarchical linear and logistic mixed models, which adjusted for clustering within surgeon and facility levels and relevant covariates.

RESULTS

While there was no difference in their baseline demographics, patients undergoing esophagectomy post-regionalization were much more likely to have their surgery performed at a designated Center of Excellence (78.8% of cases versus 34.2%, P<0.001), at a high-volume hospital (92.1% from 75.7%, P<0.001), by a high-volume surgeon (78.8% from 58.8%, P<0.001), by a board-certified thoracic surgeon (82.5% from 64.0%, P<0.001), and by minimally-invasive, versus open, approach (60.8% from 22.1%, P<0.001). Post-regionalization patients were in higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes (P=0.03) and trended toward higher-stage disease (P=0.14), indicative of the inclusion of higher-complexity patients. Despite that, regionalization was associated with improved short-term outcomes, most notably: average minimally-invasive esophagectomy (MIE) operative time decreased by 2 hours (-135.9 minutes, 95% CI: -172.2, -99.7 minutes); length of stay (LOS) decreased by 2.3 days (95% CI: -3.4, -1.2 days); and 30-day complication rate decreased significantly, from 50.7% to 30.2% (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.79). Regionalization was the only variable significantly and independently associated with all three outcomes in our adjusted multivariable models. Mortality, both at 30 and 90 days, decreased modestly but was low pre-regionalization, and the difference did not reach significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalization of thoracic surgery in our hospital system resulted in esophagectomies being performed by more experienced surgeons at higher-volume centers, with a concomitant improvement in short-term outcomes. Patients undergoing esophagectomy, particularly MIE, post-regionalization benefited significantly from decreased LOS and perioperative complication rate. Our results suggest that, in a large integrated healthcare system, regionalization significantly improves overall outcomes for patients undergoing cancer esophagectomy.

摘要

背景

一些研究发现,在高容量中心进行的食管癌切除术的结果优于低容量中心。关于系统性集中化后的结果报告在很大程度上显示了随后的改善,但这些报告源于国有化医疗系统,与美国占主导地位的异质私人支付者系统不太具有可比性。我们研究了在美国综合医疗系统内将胸外科手术区域化至卓越中心(CoE)如何改变了我们患者的整体护理,以及它是否改变了结果。

方法

我们对2009年至2016年间连续接受食管癌切除术的461例患者进行了回顾性图表审查(涵盖了2014年向区域化的转变)。高容量定义为每年≥5例食管癌切除术。我们使用卡方检验或费舍尔精确检验对分类变量进行比较,使用克鲁斯卡尔 - 沃利斯检验对年龄进行比较,以分析区域化前后外科医生、医院和手术的特征。我们使用分层线性和逻辑混合模型评估它们与患者结果的关联,该模型调整了外科医生和机构层面的聚类以及相关协变量。

结果

虽然他们的基线人口统计学特征没有差异,但区域化后接受食管癌切除术的患者更有可能在指定的卓越中心进行手术(78.8%的病例,而之前为34.2%,P<0.001),在高容量医院进行手术(从75.7%增至92.1%,P<0.001),由高容量外科医生进行手术(从58.8%增至78.8%,P<0.001),由获得委员会认证的胸外科医生进行手术(从64.0%增至82.5%,P<0.001),以及采用微创而非开放手术方式(从22.1%增至60.8%)。区域化后患者的美国麻醉医师协会分级更高(P = 0.03),且疾病分期有升高趋势(P = 0.14),这表明纳入了更高复杂性的患者。尽管如此,区域化与短期结果的改善相关,最显著的是:平均微创食管切除术(MIE)手术时间减少了2小时(-135.9分钟,95%置信区间:-172.2,-99.7分钟);住院时间(LOS)减少了2.3天(95%置信区间:-3.4,-1.2天);30天并发症发生率显著降低,从50.7%降至30.2%(比值比0.45,95%置信区间:0.25,0.79)。在我们调整后的多变量模型中,区域化是与所有三个结果均显著且独立相关的唯一变量。30天和90天的死亡率虽略有下降,但区域化前死亡率就较低,差异未达到显著水平。

结论

我们医院系统的胸外科区域化导致食管癌切除术由经验更丰富的外科医生在高容量中心进行,并伴随短期结果的改善。区域化后接受食管癌切除术的患者,尤其是MIE患者,住院时间和围手术期并发症发生率降低,显著受益。我们的结果表明,在大型综合医疗系统中,区域化显著改善了接受食管癌切除术患者的总体结果。