Centralization and the relationship between volume and outcome in knee arthroplasty procedures.
ABSTRACT 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.
- SourceAvailable from: Edmund A.M. NeugebauerJournal of the American College of Surgeons 03/2013; · 4.50 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A number of factors have been identified as influencing total knee arthroplasty outcomes, including patient factors such as gender and medical comorbidity, technical factors such as alignment of the prosthesis, and provider factors such as hospital and surgeon procedure volumes. Recently, strategies aimed at optimizing provider factors have been proposed, including regionalization of total joint arthroplasty to higher volume centers, and adoption of volume standards. To contribute to the discussions concerning the optimization of provider factors and proposals to regionalize total knee arthroplasty practices, we undertook a systematic review to investigate the association between surgeon volume and primary total knee arthroplasty outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review examining the association between surgeon volume and primary knee arthroplasty outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Studies had to report on the association between surgeon volume and primary total knee arthroplasty outcomes, including perioperative mortality and morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, or total knee arthroplasty implant survivorship. There were no restrictions placed on study design or language. RESULTS: Studies were variable in defining surgeon volume ('low': <3 to <52 total knee arthroplasty per year; 'high': >5 to >70 total knee arthroplasty per year). Mortality rate, survivorship and thromboembolic events were not found to be associated with surgeon volume. We found a significant association between low surgeon volume and higher rate of infection (0.26% - 2.8% higher), procedure time (165 min versus 135 min), longer length of stay (0.4 - 2.13 days longer), transfusion rate (13% versus 4%), and worse patient reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a trend towards better outcomes for higher volume surgeons, but results must be interpreted with caution.BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12/2012; 13(1):250. · 1.88 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many patients change hospitals for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The implications of changing hospitals must be better understood to inform appropriate utilization strategies. (1) How frequently do patients change hospitals for revision TJA? (2) Which patient, community, and hospital characteristics are associated with changing hospitals? (3) Is there an increased complication risk after changing hospitals? We identified 17,018 patients who underwent primary TJA and subsequent same-joint revision in New York or California (1997-2005) from statewide databases. Medicare was the most common payer (56%) followed by private insurance (31%). We identified patients who changed hospitals for revision TJA and those who experienced in-hospital complications. Patient, community, and hospital characteristics were analyzed to determine predictors for changing hospitals for revision TJA and the effect of changing hospitals on subsequent complications. Thirty percent of patients changed hospitals for revision. Older patients were less likely to change hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.96); no other patient characteristics were associated with changing hospitals. Patients who had index TJA at the highest-volume hospitals were less likely to change hospitals (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57). Overall, changing hospitals was associated with higher complication risk (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39). Changing to a lower-volume hospital (6% of patients undergoing revision TJA) was associated with a higher risk of complications (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.05-1.74). A post hoc number needed-to-treat analysis indicates that 234 patients would need to be moved from a lower volume hospital to a higher volume hospital to avoid one overall complication event after revision TJA. Although the complication risk was higher if changing hospitals, this finding was sensitive to the type of change. Our findings build on the existing evidence of a volume-outcomes benefit for revision TJA by examining the effect of volume in view of potential patient migration. Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 03/2014; · 2.79 Impact Factor