Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 2774–2780 | Cite as

Effect of academic status on outcomes of surgery for rectal cancer

  • Kristen Cagino
  • Maria S. Altieri
  • Jie Yang
  • Lizhou Nie
  • Mark Talamini
  • Konstantinos Spaniolas
  • Paula Denoya
  • Aurora Pryor
Article

Abstract

Background

The purpose of our study was to investigate surgical outcomes following advanced colorectal procedures at academic versus community institutions.

Methods

The SPARCS database was used to identify patients undergoing Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and Low Anterior Resection between 2009 and 2014. Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used to compare outcomes. Laparoscopic versus open procedures, surgery type, volume status, and stoma formation between academic and community facilities were compared.

Results

Higher percentages of laparoscopic surgeries (58.68 vs. 41.32%, p value < 0.0001), more APR surgeries (64.60 vs. 35.40%, p value < 0.0001), more high volume hospitals (69.46 vs. 30.54%, p value < 0.0001), and less stoma formation (48.00 vs. 52.00%, p value < 0.0001) were associated with academic centers. After adjusting for confounding factors, academic facilities were more likely to perform APR surgeries (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04–1.74, p value = 0.0235). Minorities and Medicaid patients were more likely to receive care at an academic facility. Stoma formation, open surgery, and APR were associated with longer LOS and higher rate of ED visit and 30-day readmission.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy and APR are more commonly performed at academic than community facilities. Age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status affect the facility at which and the type of surgery patients receive, thereby influencing surgical outcomes.

Keywords

Colorectal surgery Academic status Surgical outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the biostatistical consultation and support provided by the Biostatistical Consulting Core at School of Medicine, Stony Brook University.

Author contributions

All authors contributed substantially in the creation of this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Pryor receives honoraria for speaking for Ethicon, Medtronic, Stryker, and Gore and is a consultant for the Medicines Company, Merck, and Intuitive. Ms. Cagino, Mr. Nie, Drs. Altieri, Yang, Talamini and Spaniolas have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A (2014) Colorectal cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 64:104–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD (2011) Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med 364:2128–2137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McColl RJ, McGahan CE, Cai E, Olson R, Cheung WY, Raval MJ, Phang PT, Karimuddin AA, Brown CJ (2017) Impact of hospital volume on quality indicators for rectal cancer surgery in British Columbia, Canada. Am J Surg 213:388–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birkmeyer J, Siewers A, Finlayson E, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch GH, Wennberg DE (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. ACC Curr J Rev 11:88–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimick JB, Cowan JA, Colletti LM, Upchurch GR (2004) Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg 139:137–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Etzioni DA, Young-Fadok TM, Cima RR, Wasif N, Madoff RD, Naessens JM, Habermann EB (2014) Patient survival after surgical treatment of rectal cancer: Impact of surgeon and hospital characteristics. Cancer 120:2472–2481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aarts M, Okrainec A, Glicksman A, Pearsall E, Victor CJ, McLeod RS (2011) Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for colorectal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total length of hospital stay. Surg Endosc 26:442–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenblatt DY, Rajamanickam V, Pugely AJ, Heise CP, Foley EF, Kennedy GD (2011) Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer: results from the ACS NSQIP. J Am Coll Surg 212:844–854CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orcutt ST, Marshall CL, Robinson CN, Balentine CJ, Anaya DA, Artinyan A, Awad SS, Berger DH, Albo D (2011) Minimally invasive surgery in colon cancer patients leads to improved short-term outcomes and excellent oncologic results. Am J Surg 202:528–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yeo HL, Abelson JS, Mao J, Cheerharan M, Milsom J, Sedrakyan A (2016) Minimally invasive surgery and sphincter preservation in rectal cancer. J Surg Res 202:299–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paquette IM, Kemp JA, Finlayson SR (2010) Patient and hospital factors associated with use of sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 53:115–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiser MR, Quah H, Shia J, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Temple LK, Goodman KA, Minsky BD, Wong DW (2009) Sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer is facilitated by preoperative chemoradiation and intersphincteric dissection. Ann Surg 249:236–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2016). Retrieved from https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/sparcs/ (2016, March 19)
  14. 14.
    Robinson CN, Chen JG, Balentine CJ, Sansgiry S, Marshall CL, Anaya DA, Artinyan A, Albo D, Berger DH (2011) Minimally invasive surgery is underutilized for colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1412–1418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    AlNasser M, Schneider EB, Gearhart SL, Wick EC, Fang SH, Haider AH, Efron JE (2013) National disparities in laparoscopic colorectal procedures for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 28:49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park JS, Choi G, Jun SH, Hasegawa S, Sakai Y (2011) Laparoscopic versus open intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Ann Surg 254:941–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moy E, Valente E, Levin RJ, Griner PF (1996) Academic medical centers and the care of underserved populations. Acad Med 71:1370–1377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sun M, Karakiewicz PI, Sammon JD, Sukumar S, Gervais M, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, Menon M, Trinh Q (2014) Disparities in selective referral for cancer surgeries: implications for the current healthcare delivery system. BMJ Open 4:1–10Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu JH, Zingmond DS, McGory ML, Soohoo NF, Ettner SL, Brook RH, Ko CY (2006) Disparities in the utilization of high-volume hospitals for complex surgery. JAMA 296:1973–1980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richardson DP, Porter GA, Johnson PM (2013) Population-based use of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 56:704–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simons AJ, Ker R, Groshen S, Gee C, Anthone GJ, Ortega AE, Vukasin P, Ross RK, Beart RW Jr (1997) Variations in treatment of rectal cancer: the influence of hospital type and caseload. Dis Colon Rectum 40:641–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gutierrez JC, Kassira N, Salloum RM, Franceschi D, Koniaris LG (2007) Surgery for rectal cancer performed at teaching hospitals improves survival and preserves continence. J Gastrointestinal Surg 11:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Bariatric, Foregut and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of SurgeryStony Brook University Medical CenterStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family, Population and Preventive MedicineStony Brook University Medical CenterStony BrookUSA
  3. 3.Department of Applied Mathematics and StatisticsStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  4. 4.Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of SurgeryStony Brook University Medical CenterStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations