Volume-outcome association in bariatric surgery: a systematic review.
ABSTRACT To systematically examine the association between annual hospital and surgeon case volume and patient outcomes in bariatric surgery.
Bariatric surgery remains a technically demanding field with significant risk for morbidity and mortality. To mitigate this risk, minimum annual hospital and surgeon case volume requirements are being set and certain hospitals are being designated as "Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence." The effects of these interventions on patient outcomes remain unclear.
A comprehensive systematic review on volume-outcome association in bariatric surgery was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases. Abstracts of identified articles were reviewed and pertinent full-text versions were retrieved. Manual search of bibliographies was performed and relevant studies were retrieved. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were completed in a systematic fashion. Pooling of results was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of the studies. A qualitative summary of results is presented.
From a total of 2928 unique citations, 24 studies involving a total of 458,032 patients were selected for review. Two studies were prospective cohorts (level of evidence [LOE] 1), 3 were retrospective cohorts (LOE 3), 2 were retrospective case controls (LOE 3), and 17 were retrospective case series (LOE 4). The overall methodological quality of the reviewed studies was fair. A positive association between annual surgeon volume and patient outcomes was reported in 11 of 13 studies. A positive association between annual hospital volume and patient outcomes was reported in 14 of 17 studies.
There is strong evidence of improved patient outcomes in the hands of high-volume surgeons and high-volume centers. This study supports the concept of "Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence" accreditation; however, future research into the quality of care characteristics of successful bariatric programs is recommended. Understanding the characteristics of high-volume surgeons, which lead to improved patient outcomes, also requires further investigation.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The relationship between volume and outcomes in bariatric surgery is well established in the literature. However, the analyses were performed primarily in the open surgery era and in the absence of national accreditation. The recent Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program proposed an annual threshold volume of 50 stapling cases. This study aimed to examine the effect of volume and accreditation on surgical outcomes for bariatric surgery in this laparoscopic era. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used for analysis of the outcomes experienced by morbidly obese patients who underwent an elective laparoscopic stapling bariatric surgical procedure between 2006 and 2010. In this analysis, low-volume centers (LVC < 50 stapling cases/year) were compared with high-volume centers (HVC ≥ 50 stapling cases/year). Multivariate analysis was performed to examine risk-adjusted serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality between the LVCs and HVCs. Additionally, within the HVC group, risk-adjusted outcomes of accredited versus nonaccredited centers were examined. Between 2006 and 2010, 277,760 laparoscopic stapling bariatric procedures were performed, with 85 % of the cases managed at HVCs. The mean number of laparoscopic stapling cases managed per year was 17 ± 14 at LVCs and 144 ± 117 at HVCs. The in-hospital mortality was higher at LVCs (0.17 %) than at HVCs (0.07 %). Multivariate analysis showed that laparoscopic stapling procedures performed at LVCs had higher rates of mortality than those performed at HVCs [odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.3-4.8; p < 0.01] as well as higher rates of serious morbidity (OR 1.2; 95 % CI 1.1-1.4; p < 0.01). The in-hospital mortality rate at nonaccredited HVCs was 0.22 % compared with 0.06 % at accredited HVCs. Multivariate analysis showed that nonaccredited centers had higher rates of mortality than accredited centers (OR 3.6; 95 % CI 1.5-8.3; p < 0.01) but lower rates of serious morbidity (OR 0.8; 95 % CI 0.7-0.9; p < 0.01). In this era of laparoscopy, hospitals managing more than 50 laparoscopic stapling cases per year have improved outcomes. However, nonaccredited HVCs have outcomes similar to those of LVCs. Therefore, the impact of accreditation on outcomes may be greater than that of volume.Surgical Endoscopy 08/2013; · 3.43 Impact Factor
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons 03/2013; · 4.50 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is one of the most commonly performed bariatric operation worldwide for the surgical management of obesity. Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (TR-RYGBP) has been considered to be a better approach by some groups especially early in a surgeon's experience. However, the learning curve associated with TR-RYGBP has been poorly evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of patients who underwent TR-RYGBP. This is a prospective study of 154 first consecutive patients undergoing TR-RYGBP to analyze the influence of surgeon experience, bedside first assistant, and patient factors on operative time and postoperative complications. To give a comprehensive view of success related to the learning process, a single hybrid variable was generated. Multivariate analysis predicted the risk factors for complications and operative time. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis estimated the learning curve. The learning curve for TR-RYGBP was 84 cases. Case rank and first assistant level were independent predictors of total operative time. Overall 30-day postoperative morbidity rate was 33.1 % and decreased over time. Surgeon experience (OR 2.6; CI 95 [1.290 to 5.479]; p = 0.0081) and first assistant level (OR 2.42; CI 95 [1.197 to 4.895]; p = 0.0139) remained independent predictors of composite event (operative time and complications). This study identifed criteria that should be assessed in future studies about TR-RYGBP. Both surgeon experience and bedside first assistant level affected operative duration, but surgeon experience was the most significant factor in reducing complication rates.Obesity Surgery 07/2013; · 3.10 Impact Factor