4.5 Article

Centralization of Services and Reduction of Adverse Events in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 2229-2233

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2108-4

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The perioperative period is critical in the outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer. The aim of the present analysis was to examine adverse events in patients dying under surgical care in relation to changes in the organization of pancreatic cancer surgery. From 1996 to 2005, 1,033 patients with pancreatic cancer, mean age of 71 years (range 21-97 years) died under surgical care. The incidence, mortality, and number of operations for pancreatic cancer remained stable across the time period, but the proportion of patients undergoing surgery in the five specialist cancer centers increased from 50 to 80 % (p < 0.001). Prior to death 260 (25 %) patients underwent operation and 96 (9 %) had endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There was a significant rise in ERCP (p = 0.03) and a decrease in non-resectional operations (p = 0.001). Since 1996, 52 (15 %) patients in whom 90 adverse events were recorded died following surgical intervention: 28 adverse events related to the perioperative period with 15 due to direct procedure complications such as bleeding or anastomotic leak; 13 were attributed to decision making around the choice or timing of the procedure. The postoperative mortality after curative pancreatic resection reduced from 3.5 to 1.8 %. Identified adverse events fell significantly in patients who died relating to the operative period (median of 3 per annum [1994-2000] to 1 per annum [2001-2005]) (p = 0.014) and medical care (3-0) (p = 0.003). Continuous peer review audit has demonstrated a reduction in the number of adverse events in patients dying with pancreatic cancer under surgical care as increased numbers of patients treated in specialist cancer centers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available