High-volume surgeons vs high-volume hospitals: are best outcomes more due to who or where?

BACKGROUND: High-volume hospitals are purported to provide "best" outcomes. We undertook this study to evaluate the outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy when high-volume surgeons relocate to a low-volume hospital (ie, no pancreaticoduodenectomies in >5 years). METHODS: Outcomes after the last 50 pancreaticoduodenectomies undertaken at a high-volume hospital in 2012 (ie, before relocation) were compared with the outcomes after the first 50 pancreaticoduodenectomies undertaken at a low-volume hospital (ie, after relocation) in 2012 to 2013. RESULTS: Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomies at a high-volume vs a low-volume hospital were not different by age or sex. Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at the low-volume hospital had shorter operations with less blood loss, spent less time in the intensive care unit, and had shorter length of stay (P < .05 for each); 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The salutary benefits of undertaking pancreaticoduodenectomy at a high-volume hospital are transferred to a low-volume hospital when high-volume surgeons relocate. The "best" results follow high-volume surgeons.

Long-term Outcomes Favor Duodenum-preserving Pancreatic Head Resection over Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the long-term outcomes of DPPHR versus PPPD in patients with chronic pancreatitis. A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases on all studies published between January 1991 and January 2013 reporting intermediate and long-term outcomes after DPPHR and PPPD for chronic pancreatitis. Long-term outcomes of interest were complete pain relief, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency. Other outcomes of interest included perioperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). Ten studies were included comprising of 569 patients. There was no significant difference in complete pain relief (P = 0.24), endocrine insufficiency (P = 0.15), and perioperative morbidity (P = 0.13) between DPPHR and PPPD. However, quality of life (P < 0.00001), professional rehabilitation (P = 0.004), exocrine insufficiency (P = 0.005), and LOS (P = 0.00001) were significantly better for patients undergoing DPPHR compared with PPPD. In conclusion, there is no significant difference in endocrine insufficiency, postoperative pain relief, and perioperative morbidity for patients undergoing DPPHR versus PPPD. Improved intermediate and long-term outcomes including LOS, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, and preservation of exocrine function make DPPHR a more favorable approach than PPPD for patients with chronic pancreatitis.