Literature DB >> 12571867

Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery.

Jeffrey N Katz1, Charlotte B Phillips, John A Baron, Anne H Fossel, Nizar N Mahomed, Jane Barrett, Elizabeth A Lingard, William H Harris, Robert Poss, Robert A Lew, Edward Guadagnoli, Elizabeth A Wright, Elena Losina.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hospital volume and surgeon volume of total hip replacements (THRs) are associated with patient-reported functional status and satisfaction with surgery 3 years postoperatively.
METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective primary or revision THR in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Colorado in 1995. The primary outcomes were the self-reported Harris hip score and a validated scale measuring satisfaction with the results of surgery. Both outcomes were assessed 3 years postoperatively. Hospital volume was defined as the aggregate number of elective primary and revision THRs performed on Medicare beneficiaries in the hospital in 1995. High-volume hospitals were defined as those in which >100 such procedures are performed annually, and low-volume centers were defined as those in which </=12 procedures (primary THR cohort) or </=30 procedures (revision cohort) are performed annually.
RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, patients who underwent surgery in low-volume centers had worse functional status 3 years following primary and revision THR compared with patients whose surgery was performed in higher-volume centers. Patients whose revision THR was performed by a low-volume surgeon also had worse function. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables, however, the association between higher hospital volume and better functional status following primary THR was weak and statistically nonsignificant, and no statistically significant or clinically important associations between hospital or surgeon volume and functional status following revision THR was observed. Patients who underwent elective primary THR in low-volume centers were more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of surgery compared with patients whose surgeries were performed in high-volume centers. Similarly, patients whose surgeons performed </=12 procedures per year were more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of revision THR than were patients whose surgeons performed >12 procedures per year.
CONCLUSION: Hospital volume and surgeon volume have little effect on 3-year functional outcome following THR, after adjusting for patient sociodemographic and select clinical characteristics. However, satisfaction with primary THR is greater among patients who underwent surgery in high-volume centers, and satisfaction with revisions is greater among patients whose operations were performed by higher-volume surgeons. Referring clinicians should incorporate these findings into their discussion of referral choices with patients considering THR. Conclusions regarding the effect of volume on longevity of the implants must await longer-term followup studies. Finally, further research is warranted to better understand the association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and patient satisfaction with surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12571867     DOI: 10.1002/art.10754

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthritis Rheum        ISSN: 0004-3591


  56 in total

1.  Influence of self-reported limb length discrepancy on function and satisfaction 6 years after total hip replacement.

Authors:  Maura D Iversen; Nidhi Chudasama; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  J Geriatr Phys Ther       Date:  2011 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 3.381

2.  Choice of hospital for revision total hip replacement.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Elizabeth A Wright; John Wright; Kelly L Corbett; Henrik Malchau; John A Baron; Elena Losina
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Long-term trends in hip arthroplasty use and volume.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Xin Lu; John J Callaghan; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Xueya Cai; Yue Li
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  [Experience in orthopaedic surgery with minimum provider volumes].

Authors:  P Schräder; V Ewerbeck
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement.

Authors:  James D Slover; Anna N A Tosteson; Kevin J Bozic; Harry E Rubash; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs.

Authors:  Corey J Richards; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Aggregate health burden and the risk of hospitalization in older persons post hip replacement surgery.

Authors:  Anthony V Perruccio; Elena Losina; Elizabeth A Wright; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 6.053

8.  Relationship between hospital size and teaching status on outcomes for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  V J Sabesan; J D Whaley; M LaVelle; G Petersen-Fitts; D Lombardo; D Yong; D Malone; J Khan; D J L Lima
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2019-01-01

9.  The trends in treatment of femoral neck fractures in the Medicare population from 1991 to 2008.

Authors:  Benjamin J Miller; Xin Lu; Peter Cram
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Factors that predict short-term complication rates after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nelson F Soohoo; Eugene Farng; Jay R Lieberman; Lauchlan Chambers; David S Zingmond
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.