Relationship between volume and outcome for surgery on congenital diaphragmatic hernia: A systematic review

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE LITERATURE RELATING HOSPITAL OR SURGEON VOLUME TO HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR 3 UROLOGICAL CANCER PROCEDURES

Impact of Surgeon and Hospital Volume on Mortality, Length of Stay, and Cost of Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Procedural volume is an important determinant of outcomes in cancer surgery. There is a lack of a comprehensive and updated assessment of hospital and surgeon volumes in relation to short- and long-term outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched on January 2021. We conducted meta-analyses and meta-regressions assuming a random effects model to assess the associations of procedural volumes with outcomes after gastrectomy. Effect sizes included hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic and explored by subgroup analyses. The risk of publication bias, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were also assessed. We identified 53 primary publications on the effect of hospital (n=48) or surgeon (n=11) volume on 11 gastrectomy outcomes. Patients operated on in high-volume centers had better overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.90), lower short-term mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75), more adequate lymphadenectomy (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.76-2.59), and shorter length of stay (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04). The meta-analysis showed no significant associations of hospital volume with surgical complications, R0 or negative margin resection, or disease-free survival (all p>0.05). A higher surgeon volume was associated with lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). The current study suggested with high confidence that gastric cancer patients operated on in high-volume centers had better overall survival. Centralization of gastrectomy in high-volume centers might lead to an overall improvement in other outcomes, but more studies, especially on surgeon volume, are needed.

THE EFFECT OF HOSPITAL VOLUME ON MORTALITY AND RESOURCE USE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY

BackgroundThe volume-outcome relationship is supposed to be stronger in high risk, low volume procedures. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the available literature on the effects of hospital and surgeon volume, specialization and regionalization on the outcomes of the Norwood procedure.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. On the basis of titles and abstracts, articles of comparative studies were obtained in full-text in case of potential relevance and assessed for eligibility according to predefined inclusion criteria. All relevant data on study design, patient characteristics, hospital volume, surgeon volume and other institutional characteristics, as well as results were extracted in standardized tables. Study selection, data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out independently by two reviewers.ResultsWe included 10 studies. All but one study had an observational design. The number of analyzed patients varied from 75 to 2555. Overall, the study quality was moderate with a huge number of items with an unclear risk of bias. All studies investigating hospital volume indicated a hospital volume-outcome relationship, most of them even having significant results. The results were very heterogeneous for surgeon volume.ConclusionsThe volume-outcome relationship in the Norwood procedure can be supported. However, the magnitude of the volume effect is difficult to assess.

Michael J. Archibeck, MD; Richard E. White Jr., MD; New Mexico Orthopaedics, 201 Cedar S.E., Suite 6600, Albuquerque, NM 87106. E-mail address for M.J. Archibeck: [email protected] E-mail address for R.E. White Jr.: [email protected]

A systematic review of the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on survival in aortic, thoracic and fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

Despite considerable advancements in recent decades, mortality and complications following liver resection remain high. The volume-outcome relationship has been the subject of extensive research and offers relevant potential for improvement of surgical outcomes. This review aims to examine the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on patient-relevant outcomes in liver resections and synthesize the available evidence. A rapid systematic literature review was conducted, searching CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, and study registries for articles published from 2000 to 2023. Eligible studies investigated the association between hospital or surgeon volume and patient-relevant outcomes in anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections. Study quality was assessed using the ISPOR and ROBINS-E checklists and reported alongside the results. The review protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398566). The search yielded 3287 records, of which 38 publications met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were retrospective observational studies. A higher surgical volume was associated with improved patient-relevant outcomes, such as reduced mortality following both anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections and lower rates of postoperative complications. However, the results indicate that the impact of hospital or surgeon volume is limited and likely depends on the respective outcome parameter. A considerable gap remains with respect to long-term outcomes and quality of life, and studies investigating surgeon volume are scarce. The findings provide evidence supporting a positive association between higher hospital volume and improved patient-relevant outcomes in liver resection. However, surgeon volume remains underexplored and the evidence from subgroups indicates that the impact of hospital or surgeon volume likely depends on study quality, procedure type, volume thresholds, and respective outcome parameters. Patient care could benefit from further research on long-term outcomes as well as quality of life, for which the current evidence is scarce.

The relationship between surgeon and hospital procedure volumes and clinical outcomes in total joint arthroplasty has long fueled a debate over regionalization of care. At the same time, numerous policy initiatives are focusing on improving quality by incentivizing surgeons to adhere to evidence-based processes of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the independent contributions of surgeon procedure volume, hospital procedure volume, and standardization of care on short-term postoperative outcomes and resource utilization in lower-extremity total joint arthroplasty. An analysis of 182,146 consecutive patients who underwent primary total joint arthroplasty was performed with use of data entered into the Perspective database by 3421 physicians from 312 hospitals over a two-year period. Adherence to evidence-based processes of care was defined by administration of appropriate perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, beta-blockade, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Patient outcomes included mortality, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, surgical complications, readmissions, and reoperations within the first thirty days after discharge. Hierarchical models were used to estimate the effects of hospital and surgeon procedure volume and process standardization on individual and combined surgical outcomes and length of stay. After adjustment in multivariate models, higher surgeon volume was associated with lower risk of complications, lower rates of readmission and reoperation, shorter length of hospital stay, and higher likelihood of being discharged home. Higher hospital volume was associated with lower risk of mortality, lower risk of readmission, and higher likelihood of being discharged home. The impact of process standardization was substantial; maximizing adherence to evidence-based processes of care resulted in improved clinical outcomes and shorter length of hospital stay, independent of hospital or surgeon procedure volume. Although surgeon and hospital procedure volumes are unquestionably correlated with patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, process standardization is also strongly associated with improved quality and efficiency of care. The exact relationship between individual processes of care and patient outcomes has not been established; however, our findings suggest that process standardization could help providers optimize quality and efficiency in total joint arthroplasty, independent of hospital or surgeon volume.

To examine the effect of hospital volume of bariatric surgery on morbidity, mortality, and costs at academic centers. The American Society for Bariatric Surgery recently proposed categorization of certain bariatric surgery centers as "Centers of Excellence." Some of the proposed inclusion criteria were hospital volume and operative outcomes. The volume-outcome relationship has been well established in several complex abdominal operations; however, few studies have examined this relationship in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for all patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity between 1999 and 2002 (n = 24,166). Outcomes of bariatric surgery, including length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, morbidity, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) mortality, and costs were compared between high-volume (>100 cases/year), medium-volume (50-100 cases/year), and low-volume hospitals (<50 cases/year). There were 22 high-volume (n = 13,810), 27 medium-volume (n = 7634), and 44 low-volume (n = 2722) hospitals included in our study. Compared with low-volume hospitals, patients who underwent gastric bypass at high-volume hospitals had a shorter length of hospital stay (3.8 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.01), lower overall complications (10.2% versus 14.5%, P < 0.01), lower complications of medical care (7.8% versus 10.8%, P < 0.01), and lower costs ($10,292 versus $13,908, P < 0.01). The expected mortality rate was similar between high- and low-volume hospitals (0.6% versus 0.6%), demonstrating similarities in characteristics and severity of illness between groups. The observed mortality, however, was significantly lower at high-volume hospitals (0.3% versus 1.2%, P < 0.01). In a subset of patients older than 55 years, the observed mortality was 0.9% at high-volume centers compared with 3.1% at low-volume centers (P < 0.01). Bariatric surgery performed at hospitals with more than 100 cases annually is associated with a shorter length of stay, lower morbidity and mortality, and decreased costs. This volume-outcome relationship is even more pronounced for a subset of patients older than 55 years, for whom in-hospital mortality was 3-fold higher at low-volume compared with high-volume hospitals. High-volume hospitals also have a lower rate of overall postoperative and medical care complications, which may be related in part to formalization of the structures and processes of care.

Centralization aims to reduce adverse patient outcomes by concentrating complex surgical procedures in specified hospitals. This review assessed the efficacy of centralization for knee arthroplasty by examining the relationship between hospital and surgeon volume and patient outcomes. The systematic review identified studies using multiple databases, including Medline and Embase. Two independent researchers ensured studies met the inclusion criteria. Morbidity, mortality, length of stay, financial outcomes and statistical rigour were examined. Correlations between volume and outcome were reported. Twelve primary knee arthroplasty studies examined hospital volume, which was significantly associated with decreased morbidity (five of seven studies), mortality (two of five studies) and length of stay (two of three studies). Three primary knee arthroplasty studies examined surgeon volume, which was significantly associated with decreased morbidity (two of three studies), mortality (zero of two studies) and length of stay (one of one study). Two revision knee arthroplasty studies examined hospital volume. One study examined but did not test for significance between hospital volume and patient morbidity; both studies examined volume and patient mortality reporting inconclusive results; and one study reported no significant association between volume and length of stay. None of the revision knee arthroplasty studies examined surgeon volume. Significant associations between increased hospital and surgeon volume and improved patient outcomes were reported. However, when these results were separated by arthroplasty type, the association appeared tenuous. Judgements regarding centralization of knee arthroplasty should be made with caution until further evidence is published.

Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy

Editors' commentary

To conduct a comprehensive review of the health services literature to search for evidence that hospital or physician volume or specialty affects the outcome of cancer care. We reviewed the 1988 to 1999 MEDLINE literature that considered the hypothesis that higher volume or specialization equals better outcome in processes or outcomes of cancer treatments. An extensive, consistent literature that supported a volume-outcome relationship was found for cancers treated with technologically complex surgical procedures, eg, most intra-abdominal and lung cancers. These studies predominantly measured in-hospital or 30-day mortality and used the hospital as the unit of analysis. For cancer primarily treated with low-risk surgery, there were fewer studies. An association with hospital and surgeon volume in colon cancer varied with the volume threshold. For breast cancer, British studies found that physician specialty and volume were associated with improved long-term outcomes, and the single American report showed an association between hospital volume of initial surgery and better 5-year survival. Studies of nonsurgical cancers, principally lymphomas and testicular cancer, were few but consistently showed better long-term outcomes associated with larger hospital volume or specialty focus. Studies in recurrent or metastatic cancer were absent. Across studies, the absolute benefit from care at high-volume centers exceeds the benefit from break-through treatments. Although these reports are all retrospective, rely on registries with dated data, rarely have predefined hypotheses, and may have publication and self-interest biases, most support a positive volume-outcome relationship in initial cancer treatment. Given the public fear of cancer, its well-defined first identification, and the tumor-node-metastasis taxonomy, actual cancer care should and can be prospectively measured, assessed, and benchmarked. The literature suggests that, for all forms of cancer, efforts to concentrate its initial care would be appropriate.

Hospital volume and physician volume in association with survival in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer after radiation therapy