Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026

Structured Approach to Colonoscopy Technique Optimization: A Single-Center Experience with Novice Endoscopists
Published on: July 11, 2025
Low-volume centre vs high-volume: the role of a quality assurance programme in colon cancer surgery
P Mroczkowski1, R Kube, H Ptok
1Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. pawel.mroczkowski@med.ovgu.de
Insights
Hospital volume impacts colon cancer surgery outcomes, with high-volume centers showing better survival rates. However, results are mixed, suggesting critical evaluation of volume-outcome studies in quality assurance programs.
Area of Science:
- Colorectal Surgery
- Health Services Research
- Surgical Oncology
Background:
- Hospital volume is a potential indicator of surgical quality.
- Understanding the relationship between hospital caseload and patient outcomes is crucial for quality assurance.
- Previous studies suggest a volume-outcome effect in various surgical procedures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the association between hospital volume and outcomes of colon cancer surgery within a quality assurance program.
- To determine if higher hospital caseloads correlate with improved patient results in colon cancer surgery.
- To analyze differences in cancer staging, complications, and survival rates based on hospital surgical volume.
Main Methods:
- An observational study analyzed data from 31,261 patients undergoing colon cancer surgery between 2000 and 2004.
- Hospitals were categorized into low (<30), medium (30-60), and high (>60 annual operations) volume groups.
- Key outcomes monitored included cancer staging, lymph node retrieval, perioperative complications, local recurrence, and overall survival.
Main Results:
- High-volume centers managed more patients with UICC stages 0, I, and IV, while low-volume centers treated more in stages II and III.
- No significant differences were observed in intra-operative complications or anastomotic leakage between volume groups.
- A statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality was found between low and high-volume groups (0.8% difference, P=0.023).
- Overall survival was highest in the high-volume group, though significant only when compared to the medium-volume group.
Conclusions:
- A definitive conclusion on outcome differences between low- and high-volume centers cannot be drawn due to heterogeneous results and varying significance levels.
- The findings highlight the complexity of the volume-outcome relationship in colon cancer surgery within a quality assurance framework.
- Further critical assessment of volume-outcome effects in surgical quality studies is warranted.
Aim:
The study aimed to determine whether hospitals within a quality assurance programme have outcomes of colon cancer surgery related to volume.
Method:
Data were used from an observational study to determine whether outcomes of colon cancer surgery are related to hospital volume. Hospitals were divided into three groups (low, medium and high) based on annual caseload. Cancer staging, resected lymph nodes, perioperative complications and follow up were monitored. Between 2000 and 2004, 345 hospitals entered 31,261 patients into the study: 202 hospitals (group I) were classified as low volume (<30 operations; 7760 patients; 24.8%), 111 (group II) as medium volume (30-60; 14,008 patients; 44.8%) and 32 (groups III) as high volume (>60; 9493 patients; 30.4%).
Results:
High-volume centres treated more patients in UICC stages 0, I and IV, whereas low-volume centres treated more in stages II and III (P<0.001). There was no significant difference for intra-operative complications and anastomotic leakage. The difference in 30-day mortality between the low and high-volume groups was 0.8% (P=0.023).Local recurrence at 5 years was highest in the medium group. Overall survival was highest in the high-volume group; however, the difference was only significant between the medium and high-volume groups. For the low and high-volume groups, there was no significant difference in the 5-year overall survival rates.
Conclusion:
A definitive statement on outcome differences between low-volume and high-volume centres participating in a quality assurance programme cannot be made because of the heterogeneity of results and levels of significance. Studies on volume-outcome effects should be regarded critically.
Related Concept Videos
Endoscopic Procedures II: Colonoscopy
Endoscopic Procedures IV: Sigmoidoscopy and Laproscopy
Sigmoidoscopy
Sigmoidoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that uses a flexible sigmoidoscope equipped with a light source and camera to examine the rectum and sigmoid colon. The procedure involves inserting the tube through the anus...
Inflammatory Bowel Disease V: Surgical Management
Here are some common surgical interventions for IBD:

