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.

The learning curve of laparoendoscopic single-Site (LESS) fundoplication: definable, short, and safe.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease was undertaken to determine the "learning curve" for implementing LESS fundoplication. METHODS: One hundred patients, 38% men, with a median age of 61 years and median body mass index of 26 kg/m(2) , underwent LESS fundoplications. The operative times, placement of additional trocars, conversions to "open" operations, and complications were compared among patient quartiles to establish a learning curve. Median data are reported. RESULTS: The median operative times and complications did not differ among 25-patient cohorts. Additional trocars were placed in 27% of patients, 67% of whom were in the first 25-patient cohort. Patients undergoing LESS fundoplication had a dramatic relief in the frequency and severity of all symptoms of reflux across all cohorts equally (P < .05), particularly for heartburn and regurgitation, without causing dysphagia. CONCLUSION: LESS fundoplication ameliorates symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease without apparent scarring. Notably, few operations required additional trocars after the first 25-patient cohort. Patient selection became more inclusive (eg, more "redo" fundoplications) with increasing experience, whereas operative times and complications remained relatively unchanged. The learning curve of LESS fundoplication is definable, short, and safe. We believe that patients will seek LESS fundoplication because of the efficacy and superior cosmetic outcomes; surgeons will need to meet this demand.

Late results after laparoscopic fundoplication denote durable symptomatic relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Late outcomes after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication are only now becoming available. This study was undertaken to document late outcomes after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. METHODS: Five hundred ten patients underwent laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication >10 years ago and were prospectively followed. Preoperatively and postoperatively, patients scored the frequency and severity of symptoms (from 0 = never/not bothersome to 10 = always/very bothersome). Symptom scores before and after fundoplication were compared. Median symptom scores are presented. RESULTS: Early after fundoplication, significant improvements were noted in the frequency and severity of symptoms (e.g., for heartburn, from 8 to 0 and from 8 to 0, respectively, P < .001 for each). Late after fundoplication, significant improvements were maintained in the palliation of symptoms (e.g., frequency and severity for heartburn, 2, 1; respectively). At latest follow-up, 89% of patients were pleased with their symptom resolution. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term follow-up, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication durably and significantly palliates symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. This trial promotes the application of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.

Prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunts vs transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunts: 18-year follow-up of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Widespread application of transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt (TIPS) continues despite the lack of trials documenting efficacy superior to surgical shunting. Here we present an 18-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing TIPS with small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt (HGPCS) for portal decompression. STUDY DESIGN: Beginning in 1993, patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either TIPS or HGPCS as definitive therapy for portal hypertension due to cirrhosis. Complications of shunting and long-term outcomes were noted. Failure of shunting was prospectively defined as the inability to place shunt, irreversible shunt occlusion, major variceal rehemorrhage, unanticipated liver transplantation, or death. Survival and shunt failure were compared using Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. Median data are reported. RESULTS: Patient presentation, circumstances of shunting, causes of cirrhosis, severity of hepatic dysfunction (eg, Child's class, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score), and predicted survival after shunting did not differ between patients undergoing TIPS (n = 66) or HGPCS (n = 66). Survival was significantly longer after HGPCS for patients of Child's class A (91 vs 19 months; p = 0.009) or class B (63 vs 21 months; p = 0.02). Shunt failure occurred later after HGPCS than TIPS (45 vs 22 months; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TIPS, survival after HGPCS was superior for patients with better liver function (eg, Child's class A or B). Shunt failure after HGPCS occurred later than after TIPS. Rather than TIPS, application of HGPCS is preferred for patients with complicated cirrhosis and better hepatic function.