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: This systematic review assessed if outcomes in adult intensive care units (ICUs) are related to hospital and ICU patient volume. A systematic search strategy was used to identify studies reporting on volume-outcome relationship in adult ICU patients till November 2010. Inclusion of articles was established through a predetermined protocol. Two reviewers assessed studies independently and data extraction was performed using standardized data extraction forms. A total of 254 articles were screened. Of these 25 were relevant to this study. After further evaluation a total of 13 studies including 596,259 patients across 1,068 ICUs met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. All were observational cohort studies. Four of the studies included all admissions to ICU, five included mechanically ventilated patients, two reported on patients admitted with sepsis and one study each reported on patients admitted with medical diagnoses and post cardiac arrest patients admitted to ICU, respectively. There was a wide variability in the quantitative definition of volume and classification of hospitals and ICUs on this basis. Methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. A trend towards favourable outcomes for high volume centres was observed in all studies. Risk-adjusted mortality rates revealed a survival advantage for a specific group of patients in high volume centres in ten studies but no significant difference in outcomes was evident in three studies. The results indicate that outcomes of certain subsets of ICU patients--especially those on mechanical ventilation, high-risk patients, and patients with severe sepsis--are better in high volume centres within the constraints of risk adjustments.European Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 04/2012; 38(5):741-51. · 5.17 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Investigation into the provider volume-outcomes association for patients undergoing spine surgery has been limited. To examine the impact of surgeon and hospital volume on the outcomes after decompression with or without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2005-2008) were retrospectively extracted. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate the adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality and the development of a postoperative complication with increasing surgeon or hospital volume. Provider volume was evaluated continuously and categorically, divided by percentiles into quintiles. Very-low-volume surgeons performed < 15 procedures over 4 years. All analyses were adjusted for differences in patient age, sex, comorbidities, and primary payer, as well as hospital bed size, teaching status, and location (urban vs rural). A total of 48,971 admissions were examined. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly with increasing provider volume. When examined continuously, greater surgeon volume was associated with a significantly lower adjusted odds of developing a complication (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.78; P < .001). Patients who underwent surgery by very-low-volume surgeons (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.60; P = .001), but not those treated by low-, medium-, or high-volume surgeons, had a significantly higher complication rate compared with those who underwent surgery by very high-volume surgeons. After adjustment for surgeon volume, hospital volume was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality or complications. In this nationwide study, patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons had a significantly higher complication rate compared with those treated by very high-volume surgeons.Neurosurgery 06/2012; 70(6):1346-53; discussion 1353-4. · 2.53 Impact Factor