4.1 Article

Dissections of regional lymph nodes for treatment of skin cancer: predicting annual caseloads that will optimise outcomes

期刊

出版社

ROYAL COLL SURGEONS ENGLAND
DOI: 10.1308/003588414X14055925059390

关键词

Dissection of regional lymph nodes; Complications; Audit; Service provision; Skin cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION Dissection of regional lymph nodes (RLNs) can lead to significant morbidity and a high prevalence of complications. Published guidance states that these procedures should be carried out by surgeons who are members of a specialist skin multidisciplinary team who carry out a combined minimum of 15 axillary/groin dissections per year. However, there is little evidence to guide this minimum figure of procedures. We report on the burden of service provision and prevalence of complications across the South West of England and Wales. METHODS A 12-month review of dissections of RLNs for skin cancer was undertaken covering five Plastic Surgery Units with a collective catchment of 8.4 million people. Detailed data were collected on patient demographics, pathology, timing of surgery, and prevalence of complications. RESULTS A total of 163 dissections were carried out. Forty-three per cent of patients experienced one or more complication. In that 12-month period, an average of 8 axillary/groin dissections was carried out per surgeon. A funnel plot demonstrated that the prevalence of complications for individual surgeons was within the limit of the plot but, in many cases, this was based only on a relatively small number of procedures per consultant. If surgeons carried out 10 procedures per year, the upper and lower limits on the plot were 73% and 11%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Funnel plots can provide a useful guide as to whether the prevalence of complications for procedures for individual surgeons lies within acceptable limits. Based on these results, 10 procedures per consultant per year should be sufficient to enable meaningful assessment of the prevalence of complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据