Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

Patient Social Vulnerability and Hospital Community Racial/Ethnic Integration: Do All Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy Receive the Same Care Across Hospitals?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to characterize the role of patient social vulnerability relative to hospital racial/ethnic integration on postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. BACKGROUND: The interplay between patient- and community-level factors on outcomes after complex surgery has not been well-examined. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pancreatectomy between 2013 and 2017 were identified utilizing 100% Medicare inpatient files. P-SVI was determined using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, whereas H-REI was estimated using Shannon Diversity Index. Impact of P-SVI and H-REI on "TO" [ie, no surgical complication/extended length-of-stay (LOS)/90-day mortality/90-day readmission] was assessed. RESULTS: Among 24,500 beneficiaries who underwent pancreatectomy, 12,890 (52.6%) were male and median age was 72 years (Interquartile range: 68-77); 10,619 (43.3%) patients achieved a TO. The most common adverse postoperative outcome was 90-day readmission (n = 8,066, 32.9%), whereas the least common was 90-day mortality (n = 2282, 9.3%). Complications and extended LOS occurred in 30.4% (n = 7450) and 23.3% (n = 5699) of the cohort, respectively. Patients from an above average SVI county who underwent surgery at a below average REI hospital had 18% lower odds [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.95] of achieving a TO compared with patients from a below average SVI county who underwent surgery at a hospital with above average REI. Of note, patients from the highest SVI areas who underwent pancreatectomy at hospitals with the lowest REI had 30% lower odds (95% CI: 0.54-0.91) of achieving a TO compared with patients from very low SVI areas who underwent surgery at a hospital with high REI. Further comparisons of these 2 patient groups indicated 76% increased odds of 90-day mortality (95% CI: 1.10-2.82) and 50% increased odds of an extended LOS (95% CI: 1.07-2.11). CONCLUSION: Patients with high social vulnerability who underwent pancreatectomy in hospitals located in communities with low racial/ethnic integration had the lowest chance to achieve an "optimal" TO. A focus on both patient- and community-level factors is needed to ensure optimal and equitable patient outcomes.

Assessment of Magnet status and Textbook Outcomes among medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepato-pancreatic surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital Magnet status recognition and postoperative outcomes following complex cancer surgery remains ill-defined. We sought to characterize Textbook Outcome (TO) rates among patients undergoing (HP) surgery for cancer in Magnet versus non-Magnet centers. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing HP surgery between 2015 and 2017 were identified. The association of postoperative TO (no complications/extended length-of-stay/90-day mortality/90-day readmission) with Magnet designation was examined after adjusting for competing risk factors. RESULTS: Among 10,997 patients, 21.3% (n = 2337) patients underwent surgery at Magnet hospitals (non-Magnet centers: 78.7%, n = 8660). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing HP surgery had comparable odds of achieving a TO at Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals (hepatectomy: odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.17; pancreatectomy-OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06). Patients treated at hospitals with a high nurse-to-bed ratio had higher odds of achieving a TO irrespective of whether they received surgery at Magnet (high vs. low nurse-to-bed ratio; OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.89) or non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.45). Similarly, hospital HP volume was strongly associated with higher odds of TO following HP surgery in both Magnet (Leapfrog compliant vs. noncompliant; OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44) and non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.11-1.26). CONCLUSION: Hospital Magnet designation was not an independent factor of superior outcomes after HP surgery. Rather, hospital-level factors such as nurse-to-bed ratio and HP procedural volume drove outcomes.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery Improves Results: Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed. RESULTS: Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

Importance: Various clinical societies and patient advocacy organizations continue to encourage minimum volume standards at hospitals that perform certain high-risk operations. Although many clinicians and quality and safety experts believe this can improve outcomes, the extent to which hospitals have responded to these discretionary standards remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between short-term clinical outcomes and hospitals' adherence to the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study using 100% of the Medicare claims for 516 392 patients undergoing pancreatic, esophageal, rectal, or lung resection for cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. Data were accessed between December 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019. Exposures: High-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates. Results: Overall, a total of 516 392 procedures (47 318 pancreatic resections, 29 812 esophageal resections, 116 383 rectal resections, and 322 879 lung resections) were included in the study, and patient mean (SD) age was 73.1 (7.5) years. Outcomes improved over time in both hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Mortality after pancreatic resection decreased from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.8% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after esophageal resection decreased from in 6.7% 2005 to 5.0% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after rectal resection decreased from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after lung resection decreased from 4.2% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals meeting and not meeting the volume standards for esophageal, lung, and rectal cancer resections. Mortality rates after pancreatic resection were consistently lower at hospitals meeting the volume standard, although mortality at all hospitals decreased over the study period. For example, in 2016, risk-adjusted mortality rates for hospitals meeting the volume standard were 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) compared with 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%) for hospitals that did not. Although an increasing majority of patients underwent surgery in hospitals meeting the Leapfrog volume standards over time, the overall proportion of hospitals meeting the standards in 2016 ranged from 5.6% for esophageal resection to 23.3% for pancreatic resection. Conclusions and Relevance: Although volume remains an important factor for patient safety, the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards did not differentiate hospitals based on mortality for 3 of the 4 high-risk cancer operations assessed, and few hospitals were able to meet these standards. These findings highlight important tradeoffs between setting effective volume thresholds and practical expectations for hospital adherence and patient access to centers that meet those standards.

Coding in surgery: impact of a specialized coding proforma in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coding inaccuracies in surgery misrepresent the productivity of hospitals and outcome data of surgeons. The aim of this study was to audit the extent of coding inaccuracies in hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and assess the financial impact of introducing a coding proforma. METHODS: Coding of patients who underwent elective HPB surgery over a 3-month period was audited. Codes were based on International Classification of Diseases 10 and Office of Population and Census Surveys-4 codes. A coding proforma was introduced and assessed. New human resource group codes were re-assigned and new tariffs calculated. A cost analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Prior to the introduction of the coding proforma, 42.0% of patients had the incorrect diagnosis and 48.5% had missing co-morbidities. In addition, 14.5% of primary procedures were incorrect and 37.6% had additional procedures that were not coded for at all. Following the introduction of the coding proforma, there was a 27.5% improvement in the accuracy of primary diagnosis (P < 0.001) and 21% improvement in co-morbidities (P = 0.002). There was a 7.2% improvement in the accuracy of coding primary procedures (P = not significant) and a 21% improvement in the accuracy of coding of additional procedures (P < 0.001). Financial loss as a result of coding inaccuracy over our 3-month study period was £56 073 with an estimated annual loss of £228 292. CONCLUSION: Coding in HPB surgery is prone to coding inaccuracies due to the complex nature of HPB surgery and the patient case-mix. A specialized coding proforma completed 'in theatre' significantly improves the accuracy of coding and prevents loss of income.

The Theory and Practice of Pancreatic Surgery in France.

OBJECTIVE: Measure the caseload of pancreatectomies that influences their short-term outcome, at a national level, and assess the applicability of a centralization policy. BACKGROUND: There is agreement that pancreatectomies should be centralized. However, previous studies have failed to accurately define a "high-volume" center. METHODS: French healthcare databases were screened to identify all adult patients who had elective pancreatectomies between 2007 and 2012. The patients' age, comorbidities, indication, and extent of surgery, and also the hospital administrative-type and location were retrieved. The annual-caseload of pancreatectomy was calculated for each hospital facility. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Spline modeling was used to identify the different annual-caseload that influenced mortality. Logistic regressions were performed to assess if their influence was independent of confounders, and the accuracy of the model calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 22,366 patients underwent a pancreatectomy and the mortality was 8.1%. Two cut-offs were identified (25 and 65 per year): compared with centers performing >65 resections per year, the adjusted OR of mortality was 1.865 (1.529-2.276) in centers performing ≤25 resections per year and 1.234 (1.031-1.478) in those performing 26 to 65 resections per year. The average number of facilities performing ≤25, 26 to 65, and >65 pancreatectomies per year was 456, 20, and 9, respectively. The percentage of patients operated in these facilities was 56.6%, 19.9%, and 23.3%, respectively.For pancreaticoduodenectomies (12,670 patients; mortality 9.2%), there were 2 cut-offs (16 and 40 pancreaticoduodenectomies per year), and both were independent predictors of mortality (adjusted OR of 1.979 and 1.333). For distal pancreatectomies (7085 patients; 6.2% mortality), there were 2 cut-offs (13 and 25 distal pancreatectomies per year), but neither was an independent predictor of outcome (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of the model = 0.778). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery is theoretically justified, but currently unrealizable. As the incidence of pancreatic cancer increases, there is an urgent need to improve the training of surgeons and develop both intermediate and high-volume centers.

Overuse of surgery in patients with pancreatic cancer. A nationwide analysis in Italy.

BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, pancreatic cancer patients should be strictly selected for surgery, either palliative or resective. METHODS: Population-based study, including all patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer in Italy between 2010 and 2012. Hospitals were divided into five volume groups (quintiles), to search for differences among volume categories. RESULTS: There were 544 hospitals performing 10 936 pancreatic cancer operations. The probability of undergoing palliative/explorative surgery was inversely related to volume, being 24.4% in very high-volume hospitals and 62.5% in very low-volume centres (adjusted OR 5.175). Contrarily, the resection rate in patients without metastases decreased from 86.9% to 46.1% (adjusted OR 7.429). As for resections, the mortality of non-resective surgery was inversely related to volume (p < 0.001). Surprisingly, mortality of non-resective surgery was higher than that for resections (8.2% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.01). Approximately 9% of all resections were performed on patients with distant metastases, irrespective of hospital volume group. The excess cost for the National Health System from surgery overuse was estimated at 12.5 million euro. DISCUSSION: Discrepancies between guidelines on pancreatic cancer treatment and surgical practice were observed. An overuse of surgery was detected, with serious clinical and economic consequences.

National trends in resection of cystic lesions of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Management of cystic lesions of the pancreas (CLP) is controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate national changes in the resection of CLP over time, to better understand the impact of evolving guidelines on CLP management. METHODS: We used Medicare data to examine CLP resection among patients undergoing pancreatic resection between 2001 and 2012. Patients with a diagnosis of CLP were identified and compared to patients with non-CLP indications. We then examined changes over time in patient and hospital characteristics and outcomes among patients with a CLP diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 56,419 Medicare patients undergoing pancreatic resection, of which 2129 had a CLP diagnosis. The annual number of CLP resections, and proportion of all resections performed for CLP increased significantly during the period, from 2.1% (65/3072) resections in 2001, to 4.5% (286/6348) in 2012 (p < 0.001). The proportion of CLP resections with a malignant diagnosis did not change (15.5% in 2001-2003 vs. 13.1% in 2010-2012, p = 0.4). Overall rates of 30-day mortality decreased significantly during the period (9.6% in 2001-2003 vs. 5.5% in 2010-2012, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: CLP resections were performed with increasing frequency in Medicare patients between 2001 and 2012, but this did not correspond to increased diagnosis of malignancy. Additional research is needed to understand the influence of recent guidelines on management of CLP.

Regionalization and outcomes of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer surgery in USA.

BACKGROUND: Recent publications demonstrate regionalization of complex operations to high-volume centers (HVCs) in the USA. We hypothesize that this pattern applies to hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancer resections and improved outcomes. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data were analyzed from 1995-1999(T1) to 2005-2009(T2) for all HPB oncologic resections. Division of hospitals into high-, mid-, and low-volume centers (HVC, MVC, LVC) was performed. Multivariate regression was utilized to identify predictors of LVC resection. Outcomes were compared in both eras. RESULTS: A total of 45,815 cases met the inclusion criteria (19,250 from T1 and 25,565 from T2). At T1, 32.5% of resections were performed at HVCs and 34.9% at LVCs. At T2, 60.8% were performed at HVCs versus 18.5% at LVCs. In T1, inpatient mortality at HVCs versus LVCs was 3.3% versus 8.67% (p < 0.0001) and 2.7% versus 6.5% (p < 0.0001) in T2. LOS and routine discharge were improved in HVCs, but total charges were higher. All outcomes significantly differed between HVCs and LVCs in multivariate analysis, except for LOS and total charges in T2. CONCLUSION: The most recent NIS data demonstrate better outcomes in HVCs for HPB oncologic resections. These trends reflect alignment with national recommendations to centralize complex cancer surgery, as well as improved outcomes in all centers.

Pancreatic surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize published research on pancreatic surgery over the past year. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of studies aiming to reduce the costs associated with pancreatic surgery were reported. Retrospective analyses confirmed previous findings that neither the routine use of pancreatic duct stents decreases the rate of fistula formation nor does placement of a drain at the time of surgery change the morbidity in patients who develop one. Minimally invasive approaches, both laparoscopic and robot-assisted, are being performed more frequently to remove pancreatic cancers. A randomized trial confirmed that reinforcement of stapled closure during distal pancreatectomy reduces the rate of fistula formation. Controversy remains over whether small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors need to be surgically resected or can be treated nonoperatively. Patients with chronic pancreatitis should be screened thoroughly before being offered surgical treatment; two studies reported preoperative factors that can be used to identify those most likely to experience pain relief. SUMMARY: Studies published on pancreatic surgery last year focused on a wide-range of topics. The morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery continues to improve, and we anticipate that incorporation of these new findings will lead to even better outcomes.

The economics of pancreas surgery.

Pancreas surgery is a paradigm for high-acuity surgical specialization. Given the current intrigue over containing health care expenditures, pancreas surgery provides an ideal model to investigate the cost of care. This article explores the economics of this field from literature accrued over the last 2 decades. The cost of performing a pancreatic resection is established and then embellished with a discussion of the effects of clinical care paths. Then the influence of complications on costs is explored. Next, cost is investigated as an emerging outcome metric regarding variations in pancreatic surgical care. Finally, the societal-level fiscal impact is considered.

Quality assessment in pancreatic surgery: what might tomorrow require?

INTRODUCTION: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines healthcare quality across six domains: safety, timeliness, effectiveness, patient centeredness, efficiency, and equitability. We asked experts in pancreatic surgery (PS) whether improved quality metrics are needed, and how they could align to contemporary IOM healthcare quality domains. METHODS: We created and distributed a web-based survey to pancreatic surgeons. Respondents ranked 62 proposed PS quality metrics on level of importance (LoI) and aligned each metric to one or more IOM quality domains (multi-domain alignment (MDA)). LoI and MDA scores for a given quality metric were averaged together to render a total quality score (TQS) normalized to a 100-point scale. RESULTS: One hundred six surgeons (21 %) completed the survey. Ninety percent of respondents indicated a definite or probable need for improved quality metrics in PS. Metrics related to mortality, to rates and severity of complications, and to access to multidisciplinary services had the highest TQS. Metrics related to patient satisfaction, costs, and patient demographics had the lowest TQS. The least represented IOM domains were equitability, efficiency, and patient-centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: Experts in pancreatic surgery have significant consensus on 12 proposed metrics of quality that they view as both highly important and aligned with more than one IOM healthcare quality domain.

Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of a novel composite measure for identifying the best hospitals for major procedures. DATA SOURCE: We used national Medicare data for patients undergoing five high-risk surgical procedures between 2005 and 2008. STUDY DESIGN: For each procedure, we used empirical Bayes techniques to create a composite measure combining hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality with the procedure of interest, risk-adjusted mortality with other related procedures, and other variables. Hospitals were ranked based on 2005-2006 data and placed in one of three groups: 1-star (bottom 20 percent), 2-star (middle 60 percent), and 3-star (top 20 percent). We assessed how well these ratings forecasted risk-adjusted mortality rates in the next 2 years (2007-2008), compared to other measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For all five procedures, the composite measures based on 2005-2006 data performed well in predicting future hospital performance. Compared to 1-star hospitals, risk-adjusted mortality was much lower at 3-star hospitals for esophagectomy (6.7 versus 14.4 percent), pancreatectomy (4.7 versus 9.2 percent), coronary artery bypass surgery (2.6 versus 5.0 percent), aortic valve replacement (4.5 versus 8.5 percent), and percutaneous coronary interventions (2.4 versus 4.1 percent). Compared to individual surgical quality measures, the composite measures were better at forecasting future risk-adjusted mortality. These measures also outperformed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare ratings. CONCLUSION: Composite measures of surgical quality are very effective at predicting hospital mortality rates with major procedures. Such measures would be more informative than existing quality indicators in helping patients and payers identify high-quality hospitals with specific procedures.

[The centralisation of highly complex operations]. / Centralisatie van hoogcomplexe chirurgie.

The relationship between hospital volume and outcome of care after pancreatic surgery, particularly mortality, has been described extensively in the past. Today, this relationship is frequently being used by healthcare providers and/or insurance companies to select hospitals for various surgical procedures. This concept, however, has many limitations. The conceptual model concerning the relationship between how hospital facilities are arranged and the different aspects of the process of providing healthcare is discussed in three case histories describing complicated postoperative courses after pancreatic resections. The conclusion is that, besides hospital volume, the manner in which the various facilities in hospitals are arranged as well as the process of care giving, particularly the effectiveness of multidisciplinary meetings, are of crucial importance to the quality of care. Data per illness, with adequate correction for case mix, are of crucial importance for comparing the differences in quality of care between hospitals.

[Insurance costs in pancreatic surgery : does the pecuniary aspect indicate formation of centers?]. / Kostenträgerrechnung in der pankreaschirurgie : spricht die pekuniäre betrachtung für eine zentrenbildung?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic resections in specialized centers are associated with low mortality, however, still with high morbidity. The complication rate can be reduced by long-term experience in high volume centers. In this study the influence of complications on costs in the German DRG system were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data regarding operation time, hospital stay, complications and costs of 36 patients undergoing pancreatic head resection in the years 2005 and 2006 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. A p-value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Postoperative complications caused an increase in the duration of hospital stay from a median of 16 (range 11-38) to 33 (10-69) days. Costs, especially for ICU treatment and radiographic diagnostics, rose significantly. The average overall costs were 10,015 EUR (range 8,099-14,785 EUR) in patients without complications (n = 21) and 15,340 EUR (9,368-31,418 EUR) in patients with complications (n = 15). In contrast, according to the German DRG system 13,835 EUR (10,441-15,062 EUR) and 15,062 EUR (10,441-33,217 EUR) were refunded on average, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This case-cost calculation proves that pancreatic surgery in the context of the German DRG system can only be performed economically neutral in centers with low complications rates. The concentration of pancreatic surgery to centers with low complications rates, namely high volume centers, must be recommended from an economic point of view.

Establishing standards of quality for elderly patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pancreatic surgery as a model for high-acuity surgery in elderly patients for immediate and long-term outcomes, predictors of adverse outcomes, and hospital costs. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: University tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: Four hundred twelve consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic resection from October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2008, for benign and malignant periampullary conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes were compared for elderly (> or = 75 years) and nonelderly patient cohorts. Quality assessment analyses were performed to show the differential impact of complications and resource utilization between the groups. RESULTS: The elderly cohort constituted one-fifth of all patients. Benchmark standards of quality were achieved in this group, including low operative mortality (1%). Despite higher patient acuity, clinical outcomes were comparable to those of nonelderly patients at a marginal cost increase (median, $2202 per case). Cost modeling analysis showed further that minor and moderate complications were more frequent but no more debilitating for elderly patients. Major complications, however, were far more threatening to older patients. In these cases, duration of hospital stay doubled, and invasive interventions were more commonly deployed. CONCLUSIONS: Quality standards for pancreatic resection in the elderly can--and should--mirror those for younger patients. Age-related care, including geriatric consultation, supplemental enteral nutrition, and early rehabilitation placement planning, can be designed to mitigate the impact of complications in the elderly and guarantee quality.

Trends and disparities in regionalization of pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The current recommendation is that pancreatic resections be performed at hospitals doing >10 pancreatic resections annually. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of regionalization of pancreatic resection and the factors predicting resection at high-volume centers (>10 cases/year) in Texas. METHODS: Using the Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File, we evaluated trends in the percentage of patients undergoing pancreatic resection at high-volume centers (>10 cases/year) from 1999 to 2004 and determined the factors that independently predicted resection at high-volume centers. RESULTS: A total of 3,189 pancreatic resections were performed in the state of Texas. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher at low-volume centers (7.4%) compared to high-volume centers (3.0%). Patients resected at high-volume centers increased from 54.5% in 1999 to 63.3% in 2004 (P = 0.0004). This was the result of a decrease in resections performed at centers doing less than five resections/year (35.5% to 26.0%). In a multivariate analysis, patients who were >75 (OR = 0.51), female (OR = 0.86), Hispanic (OR = 0.58), having emergent surgery (OR = 0.39), diagnosed with periampullary cancer (OR = 0.68), and living >75 mi from a high-volume center (OR = 0.93 per 10-mi increase in distance, P < 0.05 for all OR) were less likely to be resected at high-volume centers. The odds of being resected at a high-volume center increased 6% per year. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas regionalization of pancreatic resection at high-volume centers in the state of Texas has improved slightly over time, 37% of patients continue to undergo pancreatic resection at low-volume centers, with more than 25% occurring at centers doing less than five per year. There are obvious demographic disparities in the regionalization of care, but additional unmeasured barriers need to be identified.

Small rural hospitals and high-risk operations: how would regionalization affect surgical volume and hospital revenue?

BACKGROUND: Because higher hospital procedure volume is associated with better outcomes for many high-risk procedures, regionalization to higher-volume hospitals has been proposed as a way to improve quality of surgical care. The potential impact of such policies on small rural hospital volume and revenue is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We identified all hospitalizations in small rural hospitals (less than 50 beds) in New York State from 1998 to 2001 that included an ICD-9 procedure code for 1 of 9 procedures for which there is a documented volume-outcomes association: abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, aortic-valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, colectomy, coronary artery bypass, cystectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, or pulmonary resection. Revenue from these procedures was estimated using gross charges and payor-specific reimbursement rates. We then compared these estimates with total hospital inpatient revenue for each rural hospital. RESULTS: We identified 14 small rural hospitals where at least one of the nine procedures was performed. All included hospitalizations for colectomy. Aortic aneurysm repairs, cystectomies, and pancreatectomies were performed in three hospitals; carotid endarterectomy in two; and esophagectomy in one. In no hospitals were cardiac procedures or pulmonary resections performed. Estimated average contribution to hospital net revenue for all 9 procedures was approximately 2%, nearly all attributable to colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: If all aortic aneurysm repairs, major cardiothoracic procedures, carotid endarterectomies, cystectomies, and pancreatectomies in New York State were regionalized to higher-volume hospitals, no small rural hospitals would experience substantial impact in terms of rural hospital procedure volume and revenue. Even regionalization of colectomy would have a small impact on inpatient volume and revenue.