Related Experiment Videos
Centralizing surgery for gynecologic oncology--a strategy assuring better quality treatment?
Karsten Münstedt1, Richard von Georgi, Björn Misselwitz
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Klinikstrasse 32, D-35385 Giessen, Germany. karsten.muenstedt@gyn.med.uni-giessen.de
Objective:
The objective of this study was to assess the association between the type of hospital and the previously reported shortcomings in surgical treatment for ovarian and endometrial carcinomas in Hesse, Germany.
Methods:
The types of hospitals)primary, secondary, tertiary and central care referral or university clinic) at which patients with endometrial and ovarian cancer were treated were correlates with the following variables: patients' functional status, tumor stage (FIGO), the performance of lymphadenectomy and/or omentectomy, and the frequency of intraoperative and postoperative complications. Data came from the GQH project, which assessed all diagnostic, surgical, and postoperative gynecologic procedures undertaken in Hesse between 1997 and 2001.
Results:
In 1119 cases of endometrial cancer significantly fewer (P < 0.001) lymphadenectomies were performed in primary care hospitals despite the fact that patients treated in primary care hospitals were younger and had a better functional status and lower tumor stage than patients treated in other types of hospitals. In ovarian cancer too, lymphadenectomy rates varied considerably with the type of hospital (P = 0.010) even when the analyses were restricted to patients whose functional status was good (ASA
Conclusion:
The type of hospital is an important factor in the quality of surgical treatment for endometrial and ovarian cancer. Restricting treatment to experienced specialist surgeons or hospitals offering high treatment standards seems necessary if treatment outcomes are to improve.