What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

Is centralization for rectal cancer surgery necessary?

Rectal cancer surgery is complex and more technically challenging than colonic surgery. Over the last 30 years internationally, there has been a growing impetus for centralizing care to improve outcomes for rectal cancer. Centralizing care may potentially reduce variations of care, increase standardization and compliance with clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to implementation at a professional, political, governance and resource allocation level. Centralization may increase inequalities to accessing healthcare, particularly impacting socioeconomically disadvantaged and rural populations with difficulties to commuting longer distances to "centres of excellence". Furthermore, it is unclear if centralization actually improves outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that individual surgeon volume rather than hospital volume may be more important in achieving optimal outcomes. In this review, we examine the literature to assess the value of centralization for rectal cancer surgery.

Influence of hospital-level and surgeon factors on the outcomes after ileo-anal pouch surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis ('pouch surgery') provides a chance to avoid permanent ileostomy after proctocolectomy, but can be associated with poor outcomes. The relationship between hospital-level/surgeon factors (including volume) and outcomes after pouch surgery is of increasing interest given arguments for increasing centralization of these complex procedures. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the literature describing the influence of hospital-level and surgeon factors on outcomes after pouch surgery for inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes after pouch surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. The MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched (1978-2022). Data on outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, readmission, operative approach, reconstruction, postoperative parameters, and pouch-specific outcomes (failure), were extracted. Associations between hospital-level/surgeon factors and these outcomes were summarized. This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42022352851).

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies, describing 41 344 patients who underwent a pouch procedure, were included; 3 studies demonstrated higher rates of pouch failure in lower-volume centres, 4 studies demonstrated higher reconstruction rates in higher-volume centres, 2 studies reported an inverse association between annual hospital pouch volume and readmission rates, and 4 studies reported a significant association between complication rates and surgeon experience.

CONCLUSION

This review summarizes the growing body of evidence that supports centralization of pouch surgery to specialist high-volume inflammatory bowel disease units. Centralization of this technically demanding surgery that requires dedicated perioperative medical and nursing support should facilitate improved patient outcomes and help train the next generation of pouch surgeons.