0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Impact of Surgeon and Hospital Caseload on the Likelihood of Performing Laparoscopic vs Open Sigmoid Resection for Diverticular Disease:  A Study Based on 55 949 Patients FREE

Walter P. Weber, MD; Ulrich Guller, MD, MHS; Nitin B. Jain, MD, MSPH; Ricardo Pietrobon, MD; Daniel Oertli, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Divisions of General Surgery and Surgical Research, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland (Drs Weber, Guller, and Oertli); and Center for Excellence in Surgical Outcomes, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (Drs Guller, Jain, and Pietrobon).


Arch Surg. 2007;142(3):253-259. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.3.253.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  High-volume surgeons and hospitals are more likely to perform laparoscopic procedures than open procedures for diverticular disease as compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals.

Design  Real-world analysis.

Setting  United States community hospitals.

Patients  Patients with primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes for diverticulosis or diverticulitis and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure codes for laparoscopic or open sigmoidectomy were selected from the 1992 to 2001 Nationwide Inpatient Samples commercially available US databases.

Main Outcome Measures  The outcome variable was the likelihood of performing laparoscopic vs open sigmoid resection. The primary predictor variable was the annual caseload of sigmoid resections per surgeon and hospital.

Results  The study population included 55 949 patients who were predominantly white (70.5%) with a mean (SD) age of 60.7 (14.7) years. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted odds ratios of performing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy were significantly higher for high-volume surgeons and high-volume hospitals. In fact, high-volume surgeons were 8.80 times more likely to perform a laparoscopic sigmoid resection compared with low-volume surgeons. Similarly, in high-volume hospitals, patients were 3.02 times more likely to undergo a laparoscopic sigmoid resection compared with patients who underwent surgery in low-volume hospitals. These clinically relevant differences remained statistically significant in subset analyses stratified by age (<65 vs ≥65 years) and time of surgery (elective vs nonelective).

Conclusions  The findings of the present investigation based on data from large US nationwide databases provide compelling evidence that high-volume surgeons and hospitals are significantly more likely to perform laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals. Based on recent studies showing clear advantages of the laparoscopic technique over the open counterpart, our results should be considered by both patients and physicians.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was introduced in clinical practice more than a decade ago.1,2 Technical feasibility and safety of this minimally invasive procedure are now established.38 Moreover, significant advantages over the open procedure have been shown in numerous studies. In fact, laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a reduced in-hospital morbidity and faster perioperative recovery with less pain, resulting in a shorter hospital stay.923 Additional benefits of the minimally invasive approach appear to be a reduced incidence of early infectious wound complications and late incisional hernia formations in addition to the obviously improved cosmesis.2427

The association between high volume for surgeons and hospitals and better surgical outcomes is well documented for many surgical procedures.2831 The literature3241 suggests that this also applies to colorectal surgery for both the open and laparoscopic techniques. We thus purposefully refrained from evaluating clinical outcomes in this study. However, it is unknown whether the likelihood of performing laparoscopic vs open colon resection depends on the caseload of the surgeon or hospital. Therefore, the objective of this large study was to investigate the relationship between surgeon and hospital caseload and performance of laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease.

Our a priori hypothesis was that high-volume surgeons and hospitals are more likely to perform laparoscopic sigmoid resection in patients with diverticular disease compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals.

STUDY POPULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES

Patients with primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision42 procedure codes for laparoscopic sigmoid resection (codes 45.76 and 54.21) or open sigmoid resection (code 45.76) were selected from the 1992 to 2001 Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases. Patients with primary diagnosis codes other than diverticulosis (code 562.10) and diverticulitis (code 562.11) were excluded from our analysis. Furthermore, patients with the diagnosis code of cancer of the sigmoid colon (code 153.3) were excluded.

The Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases are among the largest commercially available inpatient databases in the United States, containing information on several million hospital discharges from more than 1000 hospitals per year. The Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases approximate a 20% stratified probability sample representative of community hospitals in the United States. To ensure maximal representativeness of the US population, sampling strata were used for the creation of the Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases based on 5 hospital characteristics: geographic region, ownership, urban or rural location, teaching status, and bed size.

OUTCOME AND COVARIATES

The outcome variable for this study was the likelihood of performing laparoscopic vs open sigmoid resection. The primary predictor variables were surgeon and hospital volume. Surgeon volume was divided into 5 mutually exclusive groups: group 1, 1 to 3 procedures per year; group 2, 4 to 6 procedures per year; group 3, 7 to 10 procedures per year; group 4, 11 to 15 procedures per year; and group 5, more than 15 procedures per year. Similarly, hospital volume was divided into 5 mutually exclusive groups: group 1, 1 to 10 procedures per year; group 2, 11 to 20 procedures per year; group 3, 21 to 30 procedures per year; group 4, 31 to 40 procedures per year; and group 5, more than 40 procedures per year. The cutoffs for the categories were chosen based on clinically relevant surgeon and hospital volumes. Choosing 5 categories allowed us to show an incremental increase of performing laparoscopic surgery with increasing volume, an approach that is often used in the volume outcomes literature.43,44 We initially used surgeon and hospital volume as continuous variables instead of categorical parameters. We found that increasing surgeon and hospital volumes were significantly associated with more frequent performance of laparoscopic sigmoid resection (P<.001 for both surgeon and hospital volumes) regardless of whether hospital and surgeon volumes were used as categorical or continuous variables. We thus decided to use surgeon and hospital volumes as categorical variables, as this is clearly more reader friendly and easier to interpret.

Other covariates obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases included age, sex, household income (median yearly income in patient's ZIP code divided into 3 categories: category 1, $1-$25 000; category 2, $25 001-$35 000; category 3, ≥$35 001), comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index score45 modified by Deyo et al46), time of surgery (elective vs nonelective), US region of the hospital (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), and location and teaching status of the hospital (rural nonteaching, urban nonteaching, or urban teaching hospital).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

All of the statistical analyses were performed using Stata statistical software version 8.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Tex) and SAS statistical software version 8.02 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).

In the first step, bivariate analyses were performed to assess the association between surgeon and hospital volume and the unadjusted likelihood of performing laparoscopic sigmoid resection. Then, multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the risk-adjusted association between surgeon or hospital volume and the likelihood of performing laparoscopic sigmoid resection.

The surgeon volume models were controlled for hospital volume, but surgeon volume was not used as a confounder for models with hospital volume as a main effect to avoid exclusion of records without surgeon identifiers. All of the models were adjusted for the patient's comorbidity, age, sex, income, and time of surgery (elective vs nonelective), the hospital's location and teaching status, and the US region of the hospital.

Adjusted odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals, and P values were used to express the strength of association between surgeon and hospital volume and the likelihood of performing laparoscopic sigmoid resection. The ORs of performing laparoscopic surgery were calculated using the lowest-volume surgeon and hospital categories as reference.

The data collection in the Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases is very complete; with the exception of surgeon volume (missing data for surgeon volume in 27 207 patients [48.6%]), no missing data were encountered at a percentage greater than 10%. To assess the impact of missing surgeon identifiers on our results, sensitivity analyses using imputation by best subset regression were conducted. This method has been well described in the literature.4749 Estimates of missing surgeon volumes were based on other known characteristics such as the location of the hospital where the patient was treated (urban or rural), US region in which the hospital was located, teaching status of the hospital, hospital bed size, and year of operation.

Our database contained information from about 55 949 patients who underwent laparoscopic or open sigmoid resection in the years 1992 to 2001. Two thousand two patients (3.6%) underwent laparoscopic sigmoid resection and 53 947 (96.4%) underwent open sigmoid resection. The percentages of laparoscopic sigmoid resections remained constantly low over time and varied from 2.7% to 4.2% (1992, 2.7%; 1993, 3.9%; 1994, 3.6%; 1995, 3.7%; 1996, 3.4%; 1997, 3.6%; 1998, 3.7%; 1999, 3.7%; 2000, 4.2%; and 2001, 3.3%). The percentages of laparoscopic sigmoid resections performed increased steadily with volume for both hospitals and surgeons (Table 1). Patients' baseline characteristics distributed by surgeon and hospital volume are shown in Table 1. The mean (SD) age of our overall study population was 60.7 (14.7) years, and 44.0% of our patients were aged 65 years or older. Patients were female in 55.1% of all of the cases and were predominantly white (70.5%).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of 28742 Patients by Surgeon Volume and 55949 Patients by Hospital Volume

Almost two thirds (62.3%) of the high-volume surgeons performed surgery in high-volume hospitals. Similarly, nearly half (43.2%) of the low-volume surgeons were employed in low-volume hospitals (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Distribution of 28742 Patients by Surgeon and Hospital Procedure Volume

In bivariate analyses, there was a statistically significant association between both high surgeon and high hospital caseloads and an increased likelihood of performing laparoscopic sigmoid resection (Table 3). Even after adjusting for other covariates in multivariate analyses, this association remained highly statistically significant (Table 4). In fact, high-volume surgeons were 8.80 times more likely to perform a laparoscopic sigmoid resection compared with low-volume surgeons. Similarly, in high-volume hospitals, patients were 3.02 times more likely to undergo a laparoscopic sigmoid resection compared with patients undergoing surgery in low-volume hospitals. These statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were confirmed in subset analyses stratified by age (<65 vs ≥65 years) and time of surgery (elective vs nonelective) (Table 5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Unadjusted Odds Ratio of Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery by Surgeon and Hospital Volume
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Risk-Adjusted Odds Ratio of Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery by Surgeon and Hospital Volume*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Risk-Adjusted Results Stratified by Age and Time of Surgery*

Sensitivity analyses performed for missing values of surgeon volume showed results similar to those presented in our study, with high-volume surgeons and hospitals performing significantly more laparoscopic surgery compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals.

To our knowledge, this study is the first in the literature that evaluates the relationship between surgeon and hospital caseloads and the likelihood of performing laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. Our findings provide compelling evidence that high-volume surgeons (OR = 8.80; 95% confidence interval = 6.25-12.40; P<.001) and hospitals (OR = 3.02; 95% confidence interval = 2.51-3.65; P<.001) are significantly more likely to perform laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals. These large differences remained statistically significant in subset analyses stratified by age (<65 vs ≥65 years) and whether elective or nonelective surgery was performed.

The association between high volume for surgeons and hospitals and better outcomes is well established for a variety of different surgical procedures.2831,50 Several studies36,3841,51,52 have shown that both the experience of the operating surgeon and the annual caseload of the hospital affect clinical outcomes after open colorectal surgery. Various authors3235,37,5355 investigated the association between the experience in performing laparoscopic colectomy and outcomes. They found significant decreases in the duration of surgery, length of postoperative hospital stay, and rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications with increasing experience. Based on these findings, most investigators have emphasized the association between greater surgical experience and better outcomes for this technically challenging, minimally invasive approach even beyond the initial steep learning curve.3235,37

We recently demonstrated that patients with rectal cancer treated by high-volume surgeons are 5 times more likely to undergo sphincter-sparing procedures than those treated by low-volume surgeons.56 It is intuitive that sphincter-sparing procedures, which often represent a technical challenge, are more frequently performed by high-volume surgeons with extensive experience. Based on the findings of this previous investigation, we hypothesized that high-volume surgeons and hospitals are more likely to perform laparoscopic sigmoid resections compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals, as the laparoscopic resection is often more demanding than the open approach for inexperienced surgeons.

The present investigation proves this a priori hypothesis to be true and clearly shows that high-volume surgeons and hospitals were significantly more likely to perform laparoscopic sigmoid resection compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals.

The minimal access of laparoscopic colorectal surgery offers substantial patient benefits compared with the open counterpart.11,12,14,1827 Our group recently demonstrated significant advantages of laparoscopic colectomy over open colectomy with respect to the length of the hospital stay, rate of routine hospital discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity by performing a study of more than 18 000 patients with diverticular disease.13 The acceptance of laparoscopic surgery in the field of colonic cancer has been hampered by the lack of prospective randomized trials with adequate follow-up periods providing equal oncological clearance and long-term course.17,5759 In the meantime, however, several excellent studies9,10,15,16 have confirmed better short-term outcomes and provide compelling evidence that the laparoscopic intervention does not jeopardize survival and disease control of patients with colorectal cancer. Laparoscopy has conquered more complex areas of colonic surgery, which further stresses the clinical relevance of the availability of this technically demanding procedure.

Regionalization for technically challenging surgery to centers performing a required minimum number of annual cases has repeatedly been suggested.29,6063 Based on the combination of significant short-term advantages of the laparoscopic technique, its predominant availability at high-volume hospitals, and better operative quality of surgeons and hospitals with high caseloads, our results support the value of regionalization for the operative treatment of diverticular disease.

We would like to acknowledge the limitations of our study. Most importantly, this is a large observational study and not a randomized clinical trial; thus, patients in different volume categories undergoing surgery for diverticular disease differed with respect to sociodemographics and comorbidities. However, even after risk adjustment for potential patient and hospital level confounding factors in multivariate analyses, the likelihood of performing laparoscopic sigmoid resection by high-volume surgeons and hospitals remained statistically significantly higher compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals. Furthermore, high-volume surgeons and hospitals were significantly more likely to perform laparoscopic resections even in analyses stratified by age and by whether the patients underwent elective or nonelective surgery.

Second, in this investigation, conversions from laparoscopic to open sigmoidectomy were coded as open sigmoid resections, and the Nationwide Inpatient Samples databases do not allow for identifying patients who underwent a conversion from the laparoscopic procedure to the open procedure. Nonetheless, the type of operation the surgeon initially intended to do is of minor relevance to the patient. Conversely, the type of resection the surgeon finally performed is of great relevance to the patient.

A third limitation is the missing information on surgeon caseload. However, imputation of missing values using best-subset regression showed no relevant changes of our results, emphasizing the robustness of our findings. Moreover, the risk-adjusted ORs were not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant, exceeding 3 for the highest hospital volume and 8 for the highest surgeon volume compared with low-volume hospitals and surgeons, respectively. We thus believe that these large differences cannot be explained solely by residual confounding but are in fact real.

Fourth, only 3.6% of all of the patients underwent laparoscopic surgery in this study. Although this percentage is small, the corresponding number (n = 2002) is considerable; this allows us to perform sound statistical analyses and obtain results that are representative for the United States.

Finally, we purposefully refrained from evaluating clinical outcomes in this study, as it is already known that high-volume surgeons and hospitals perform better than low-volume surgeons and hospitals. Instead, we focused on the previously unknown relationship between volume and choice of laparoscopic vs open sigmoid resection.

Despite the mentioned limitations, the investigation has numerous strengths. The sample size is very large, which allowed us to evaluate risk-adjusted results in the subsets of patients younger than 65 years vs those aged 65 years and older and in the patients who underwent elective vs nonelective operations with sufficient statistical power. Equally important, our analyses are based on real-world data from nationally representative stratified samples; thus, selection bias is minimal and the findings of the investigation are generalizable to the entire US population.

This study, based on large databases, provides compelling evidence that high-volume surgeons and hospitals are significantly more likely to perform laparoscopic sigmoid resections compared with low-volume surgeons and hospitals. Based on recent articles showing short-term advantages of laparoscopic colectomy as compared with open colectomy and the association between higher caseloads and better outcomes, our results should be considered by both patients and physicians. If a laparoscopic sigmoid resection is deemed desirable, then directing patients with diverticular disease to high-volume surgeons and hospitals may be justified.

Correspondence: Walter P. Weber, MD, Department of Surgery, Divisions of General Surgery and Surgical Research, University Hospital Basel, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland (weberwa@gmx.ch).

Accepted for Publication: January 22, 2006.

Author Contributions: Drs Weber and Guller contributed equally to this work. Study concept and design: Guller, Pietrobon, and Oertli. Acquisition of data: Weber and Pietrobon. Analysis and interpretation of data: Weber, Guller, and Jain. Drafting of the manuscript: Weber and Guller. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Guller, Jain, Pietrobon, and Oertli. Statistical analysis: Jain. Administrative, technical, and material support: Weber and Pietrobon. Study supervision: Guller and Oertli.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Cooperman  AMKatz  VZimmon  DBotero  G Laparoscopic colon resection: a case report. J Laparoendosc Surg 1991;1221- 224
PubMed Link to Article
Jacobs  MVerdeja  JCGoldstein  HS Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991;1144- 150
PubMed
Curet  MJPutrakul  KPitcher  DEJosloff  RKZucker  KA Laparoscopically assisted colon resection for colon carcinoma: perioperative results and long-term outcome. Surg Endosc 2000;141062- 1066
PubMed Link to Article
Larach  SWPatankar  SKFerrara  AWilliamson  PRPerozo  SELord  AS Complications of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: analysis and comparison of early vs latter experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40592- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Leung  KLYiu  RYLai  PBLee  JFThung  KHLau  WY Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: five-year audit. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42327- 332
PubMed Link to Article
Monson  JRDarzi  ACarey  PDGuillou  PJ Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in an unselected group of patients. Lancet 1992;340831- 833
PubMed Link to Article
Peters  WRBartels  TL Minimally invasive colectomy: are the potential benefits realized? Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36751- 756
PubMed Link to Article
Stocchi  LNelson  HYoung-Fadok  TMLarson  DRIlstrup  DM Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43326- 332
PubMed Link to Article
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;3502050- 2059
PubMed Link to Article
Abraham  NSYoung  JMSolomon  MJ Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2004;911111- 1124
PubMed Link to Article
Braga  MVignali  AZuliani  W  et al.  Metabolic and functional results after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;451070- 1077
PubMed Link to Article
Franklin  ME  JrRosenthal  DAbrego-Medina  D  et al.  Prospective comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma: five-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39 ((suppl)) S35- S46
PubMed Link to Article
Guller  UJain  NHervey  SPurves  HPietrobon  R Laparoscopic vs open colectomy: outcomes comparison based on large nationwide databases. Arch Surg 2003;1381179- 1186
PubMed Link to Article
Hasegawa  HKabeshima  YWatanabe  MYamamoto  SKitajima  M Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2003;17636- 640
PubMed Link to Article
Lacy  AMGarcia-Valdecasas  JCDelgado  S  et al.  Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;3592224- 2229
PubMed Link to Article
Leung  KLKwok  SPLam  SC  et al.  Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004;3631187- 1192
PubMed Link to Article
Milsom  JWBohm  BHammerhofer  KAFazio  VSteiger  EElson  P A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 1998;18746- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Patankar  SKLee  W Current status of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38621- 627
PubMed Link to Article
Schwenk  WBohm  BHaase  OJunghans  TMuller  JM Laparoscopic vs conventional colorectal resection: a prospective randomised study of postoperative ileus and early postoperative feeding. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1998;38349- 55
PubMed Link to Article
Schwenk  WBohm  BWitt  CJunghans  TGrundel  KMuller  JM Pulmonary function following laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resection: a randomized controlled evaluation. Arch Surg 1999;1346- 12
PubMed Link to Article
Veldkamp  RGholghesaei  MBonjer  HJ  et al. European Association of Endoscopic Surgery, Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 2004;181163- 1185
PubMed Link to Article
Young-Fadok  TMRadice  ENelson  HHarmsen  WS Benefits of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colon polyps: a case-matched series. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75344- 348
PubMed Link to Article
Zhou  ZGHu  MLi  Y  et al.  Laparoscopic vs open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2004;181211- 1215
PubMed Link to Article
Braga  MVignali  AGianotti  L  et al.  Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Ann Surg 2002;236759- 766
PubMed Link to Article
Dunker  MSStiggelbout  AMvan Hogezand  RARingers  JGriffioen  GBemelman  WA Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. Surg Endosc 1998;121334- 1340
PubMed Link to Article
Lumley  JStitz  RStevenson  AFielding  GLuck  A Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: intermediate to long-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45867- 872
PubMed Link to Article
Seshadri  PAPoulin  ECSchlachta  CMCadeddu  MOMamazza  J Does a laparoscopic approach to total abdominal colectomy and proctocolectomy offer advantages? Surg Endosc 2001;15837- 842
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JDStukel  TASiewers  AEGoodney  PPWennberg  DELucas  FL Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;3492117- 2127
PubMed Link to Article
Dudley  RAJohansen  KLBrand  RRennie  DJMilstein  A Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA 2000;2831159- 1166
PubMed Link to Article
Finlayson  EVBirkmeyer  JD Effects of hospital volume on life expectancy after selected cancer operations in older adults: a decision analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196410- 417
PubMed Link to Article
Gandjour  ABannenberg  ALauterbach  KW Threshold volumes associated with higher survival in health care: a systematic review. Med Care 2003;411129- 1141
PubMed Link to Article
Agachan  FJoo  JSWeiss  EGWexner  SD Intraoperative laparoscopic complications: are we getting better? Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39 ((suppl)) S14- S19
PubMed Link to Article
Agachan  FJoo  JSSher  MWeiss  EGNogueras  JJWexner  SD Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: do we get faster? Surg Endosc 1997;11331- 335
PubMed Link to Article
Bennett  CLStryker  SJFerreira  MRAdams  JBeart  RW  Jr The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies. Arch Surg 1997;13241- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Bruch  HPSchiedeck  THSchwandner  O Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a five-year experience. Dig Surg 1999;1645- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Harmon  JWTang  DGGordon  TA  et al.  Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 1999;230404- 411
PubMed Link to Article
Kockerling  FSchneider  CReymond  MA  et al. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group, Early results of a prospective multicenter study on 500 consecutive cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 1998;1237- 41
PubMed Link to Article
Prystowsky  JBBordage  GFeinglass  JM Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon's training, certification, and experience. Surgery 2002;132663- 670
PubMed Link to Article
Schrag  DCramer  LDBach  PBCohen  AMWarren  JLBegg  CB Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA 2000;2843028- 3035
PubMed Link to Article
Schrag  DPanageas  KSRiedel  E  et al.  Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg 2002;236583- 592
PubMed Link to Article
Schrag  DPanageas  KSRiedel  E  et al.  Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J Surg Oncol 2003;8368- 78
PubMed Link to Article
World Health Organization, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9).  Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1977;
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEFinlayson  EV  et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;3461128- 1137
PubMed Link to Article
Katz  JNLosina  EBarrett  J  et al.  Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;831622- 1629
PubMed Link to Article
Charlson  MEPompei  PAles  KLMacKenzie  CR A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40373- 383
PubMed Link to Article
Deyo  RACherkin  DCCiol  MA Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45613- 619
PubMed Link to Article
Molenberghs  GWilliams  PLLipsitz  SR Prediction of survival and opportunistic infections in HIV-infected patients: a comparison of imputation methods of incomplete CD4 counts. Stat Med 2002;211387- 1408
PubMed Link to Article
Arnold  AMKronmal  RA Multiple imputation of baseline data in the cardiovascular health study. Am J Epidemiol 2003;15774- 84
PubMed Link to Article
Kmetic  AJoseph  LBerger  CTenenhouse  A Multiple imputation to account for missing data in a survey: estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis. Epidemiology 2002;13437- 444
PubMed Link to Article
Singh  RO'Brien  TS The relationship between volume and outcome in urological surgery. BJU Int 2004;93931- 935
PubMed Link to Article
Ko  CYChang  JTChaudhry  SKominski  G Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection? Surgery 2002;132268- 273
PubMed Link to Article
Meyerhardt  JACatalano  PJSchrag  D  et al.  Association of hospital procedure volume and outcomes in patients with colon cancer at high risk for recurrence. Ann Intern Med 2003;139649- 657
PubMed Link to Article
Reissman  PCohen  SWeiss  EGWexner  SD Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: ascending the learning curve. World J Surg 1996;20277- 281
PubMed Link to Article
Simons  AJAnthone  GJOrtega  AE  et al.  Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy learning curve. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38600- 603
PubMed Link to Article
Kuhry  EBonjer  HJHaglind  E  et al. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) Trial Group, Impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colonic cancer. Surg Endosc 2005;19687- 692
PubMed Link to Article
Purves  HPietrobon  RHervey  SGuller  UMiller  WLudwig  K Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48195- 202
PubMed Link to Article
Schiedeck  THSchwandner  OBaca  I  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer: results of a German five-center study. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;431- 8
PubMed Link to Article
Lacy  AMGarcia-Valdecasas  JCPique  JM  et al.  Short-term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 1995;91101- 1105
PubMed
Weeks  JCNelson  HGelber  SSargent  DSchroeder  G Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2002;287321- 328
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JD Should we regionalize major surgery? potential benefits and policy considerations. J Am Coll Surg 2000;190341- 349
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JD High-risk surgery: follow the crowd. JAMA 2000;2831191- 1193
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEMarth  NJGoodman  DC Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA 2003;2902703- 2708
PubMed Link to Article
Epstein  AM Volume and outcome: it is time to move ahead. N Engl J Med 2002;3461161- 1164
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of 28742 Patients by Surgeon Volume and 55949 Patients by Hospital Volume
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Distribution of 28742 Patients by Surgeon and Hospital Procedure Volume
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Unadjusted Odds Ratio of Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery by Surgeon and Hospital Volume
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Risk-Adjusted Odds Ratio of Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery by Surgeon and Hospital Volume*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Risk-Adjusted Results Stratified by Age and Time of Surgery*

References

Cooperman  AMKatz  VZimmon  DBotero  G Laparoscopic colon resection: a case report. J Laparoendosc Surg 1991;1221- 224
PubMed Link to Article
Jacobs  MVerdeja  JCGoldstein  HS Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991;1144- 150
PubMed
Curet  MJPutrakul  KPitcher  DEJosloff  RKZucker  KA Laparoscopically assisted colon resection for colon carcinoma: perioperative results and long-term outcome. Surg Endosc 2000;141062- 1066
PubMed Link to Article
Larach  SWPatankar  SKFerrara  AWilliamson  PRPerozo  SELord  AS Complications of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: analysis and comparison of early vs latter experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40592- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Leung  KLYiu  RYLai  PBLee  JFThung  KHLau  WY Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: five-year audit. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42327- 332
PubMed Link to Article
Monson  JRDarzi  ACarey  PDGuillou  PJ Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in an unselected group of patients. Lancet 1992;340831- 833
PubMed Link to Article
Peters  WRBartels  TL Minimally invasive colectomy: are the potential benefits realized? Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36751- 756
PubMed Link to Article
Stocchi  LNelson  HYoung-Fadok  TMLarson  DRIlstrup  DM Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43326- 332
PubMed Link to Article
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;3502050- 2059
PubMed Link to Article
Abraham  NSYoung  JMSolomon  MJ Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2004;911111- 1124
PubMed Link to Article
Braga  MVignali  AZuliani  W  et al.  Metabolic and functional results after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;451070- 1077
PubMed Link to Article
Franklin  ME  JrRosenthal  DAbrego-Medina  D  et al.  Prospective comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma: five-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39 ((suppl)) S35- S46
PubMed Link to Article
Guller  UJain  NHervey  SPurves  HPietrobon  R Laparoscopic vs open colectomy: outcomes comparison based on large nationwide databases. Arch Surg 2003;1381179- 1186
PubMed Link to Article
Hasegawa  HKabeshima  YWatanabe  MYamamoto  SKitajima  M Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2003;17636- 640
PubMed Link to Article
Lacy  AMGarcia-Valdecasas  JCDelgado  S  et al.  Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;3592224- 2229
PubMed Link to Article
Leung  KLKwok  SPLam  SC  et al.  Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004;3631187- 1192
PubMed Link to Article
Milsom  JWBohm  BHammerhofer  KAFazio  VSteiger  EElson  P A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 1998;18746- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Patankar  SKLee  W Current status of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38621- 627
PubMed Link to Article
Schwenk  WBohm  BHaase  OJunghans  TMuller  JM Laparoscopic vs conventional colorectal resection: a prospective randomised study of postoperative ileus and early postoperative feeding. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1998;38349- 55
PubMed Link to Article
Schwenk  WBohm  BWitt  CJunghans  TGrundel  KMuller  JM Pulmonary function following laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resection: a randomized controlled evaluation. Arch Surg 1999;1346- 12
PubMed Link to Article
Veldkamp  RGholghesaei  MBonjer  HJ  et al. European Association of Endoscopic Surgery, Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 2004;181163- 1185
PubMed Link to Article
Young-Fadok  TMRadice  ENelson  HHarmsen  WS Benefits of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colon polyps: a case-matched series. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75344- 348
PubMed Link to Article
Zhou  ZGHu  MLi  Y  et al.  Laparoscopic vs open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2004;181211- 1215
PubMed Link to Article
Braga  MVignali  AGianotti  L  et al.  Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Ann Surg 2002;236759- 766
PubMed Link to Article
Dunker  MSStiggelbout  AMvan Hogezand  RARingers  JGriffioen  GBemelman  WA Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. Surg Endosc 1998;121334- 1340
PubMed Link to Article
Lumley  JStitz  RStevenson  AFielding  GLuck  A Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: intermediate to long-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45867- 872
PubMed Link to Article
Seshadri  PAPoulin  ECSchlachta  CMCadeddu  MOMamazza  J Does a laparoscopic approach to total abdominal colectomy and proctocolectomy offer advantages? Surg Endosc 2001;15837- 842
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JDStukel  TASiewers  AEGoodney  PPWennberg  DELucas  FL Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;3492117- 2127
PubMed Link to Article
Dudley  RAJohansen  KLBrand  RRennie  DJMilstein  A Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA 2000;2831159- 1166
PubMed Link to Article
Finlayson  EVBirkmeyer  JD Effects of hospital volume on life expectancy after selected cancer operations in older adults: a decision analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196410- 417
PubMed Link to Article
Gandjour  ABannenberg  ALauterbach  KW Threshold volumes associated with higher survival in health care: a systematic review. Med Care 2003;411129- 1141
PubMed Link to Article
Agachan  FJoo  JSWeiss  EGWexner  SD Intraoperative laparoscopic complications: are we getting better? Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39 ((suppl)) S14- S19
PubMed Link to Article
Agachan  FJoo  JSSher  MWeiss  EGNogueras  JJWexner  SD Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: do we get faster? Surg Endosc 1997;11331- 335
PubMed Link to Article
Bennett  CLStryker  SJFerreira  MRAdams  JBeart  RW  Jr The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies. Arch Surg 1997;13241- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Bruch  HPSchiedeck  THSchwandner  O Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a five-year experience. Dig Surg 1999;1645- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Harmon  JWTang  DGGordon  TA  et al.  Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 1999;230404- 411
PubMed Link to Article
Kockerling  FSchneider  CReymond  MA  et al. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group, Early results of a prospective multicenter study on 500 consecutive cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 1998;1237- 41
PubMed Link to Article
Prystowsky  JBBordage  GFeinglass  JM Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon's training, certification, and experience. Surgery 2002;132663- 670
PubMed Link to Article
Schrag  DCramer  LDBach  PBCohen  AMWarren  JLBegg  CB Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA 2000;2843028- 3035
PubMed Link to Article
Schrag  DPanageas  KSRiedel  E  et al.  Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg 2002;236583- 592
PubMed Link to Article
Schrag  DPanageas  KSRiedel  E  et al.  Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J Surg Oncol 2003;8368- 78
PubMed Link to Article
World Health Organization, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9).  Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1977;
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEFinlayson  EV  et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;3461128- 1137
PubMed Link to Article
Katz  JNLosina  EBarrett  J  et al.  Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;831622- 1629
PubMed Link to Article
Charlson  MEPompei  PAles  KLMacKenzie  CR A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40373- 383
PubMed Link to Article
Deyo  RACherkin  DCCiol  MA Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45613- 619
PubMed Link to Article
Molenberghs  GWilliams  PLLipsitz  SR Prediction of survival and opportunistic infections in HIV-infected patients: a comparison of imputation methods of incomplete CD4 counts. Stat Med 2002;211387- 1408
PubMed Link to Article
Arnold  AMKronmal  RA Multiple imputation of baseline data in the cardiovascular health study. Am J Epidemiol 2003;15774- 84
PubMed Link to Article
Kmetic  AJoseph  LBerger  CTenenhouse  A Multiple imputation to account for missing data in a survey: estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis. Epidemiology 2002;13437- 444
PubMed Link to Article
Singh  RO'Brien  TS The relationship between volume and outcome in urological surgery. BJU Int 2004;93931- 935
PubMed Link to Article
Ko  CYChang  JTChaudhry  SKominski  G Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection? Surgery 2002;132268- 273
PubMed Link to Article
Meyerhardt  JACatalano  PJSchrag  D  et al.  Association of hospital procedure volume and outcomes in patients with colon cancer at high risk for recurrence. Ann Intern Med 2003;139649- 657
PubMed Link to Article
Reissman  PCohen  SWeiss  EGWexner  SD Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: ascending the learning curve. World J Surg 1996;20277- 281
PubMed Link to Article
Simons  AJAnthone  GJOrtega  AE  et al.  Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy learning curve. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38600- 603
PubMed Link to Article
Kuhry  EBonjer  HJHaglind  E  et al. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) Trial Group, Impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colonic cancer. Surg Endosc 2005;19687- 692
PubMed Link to Article
Purves  HPietrobon  RHervey  SGuller  UMiller  WLudwig  K Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48195- 202
PubMed Link to Article
Schiedeck  THSchwandner  OBaca  I  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer: results of a German five-center study. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;431- 8
PubMed Link to Article
Lacy  AMGarcia-Valdecasas  JCPique  JM  et al.  Short-term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 1995;91101- 1105
PubMed
Weeks  JCNelson  HGelber  SSargent  DSchroeder  G Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2002;287321- 328
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JD Should we regionalize major surgery? potential benefits and policy considerations. J Am Coll Surg 2000;190341- 349
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JD High-risk surgery: follow the crowd. JAMA 2000;2831191- 1193
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  JDSiewers  AEMarth  NJGoodman  DC Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA 2003;2902703- 2708
PubMed Link to Article
Epstein  AM Volume and outcome: it is time to move ahead. N Engl J Med 2002;3461161- 1164
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 19

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles