Literature DB >> 15879851

Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters.

Fernando J Bianco1, Elyn R Riedel, Colin B Begg, Michael W Kattan, Peter T Scardino.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A strong association between surgeon, hospital volume and postoperative morbidity of radical prostatectomy has been demonstrated. While better outcomes are associated with high volume surgeons, the degree of variation in outcomes among surgeons has not been fully examined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a linked database from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries and federal Medicare claims data, we analyzed outcomes of consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1992 and 1996. We focused on variations in several measures of morbidity (perioperative complications, late urinary complications and long-term incontinence) among patients of high volume surgeons, defined as those with 20 or more patients in the study period. After adjusting for hospital, surgeon volume and case mix, we examined the extent to which variations in the rates of adverse outcomes differed among surgeons for all 3 end points.
RESULTS: Of the 999 surgeons 16% (159) performed 48.7% (5,238) of the 10,737 radical prostatectomies during the study. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.5%, the major postoperative complication rate was 28.6%, late urinary complications 25.2% (major events 16%) and long-term incontinence 6.7%. For all 3 morbidity outcomes the variation among surgeons in the rate of complications was significantly greater than that expected by chance (p =0.001 for each) after adjustment of covariates. Furthermore, surgeons with better (or worse) than average results with regard to 1 outcome were likely to have better (or worse, respectively) results with regard to the other 2 outcome measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity end points that directly affect quality of life showed significant variability among high volume providers. Surgeons who performed well in 1 area (eg postoperative complications) performed well in others. These results further suggest that variations in surgical technique and postoperative care lead to variations in outcomes after radical prostatectomy, indicating that outcomes of this operation are sensitive to small differences in performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15879851      PMCID: PMC1855289          DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158163.21079.66

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  20 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Katherine S Panageas; Deborah Schrag; Elyn Riedel; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-10-21       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Taking stock of volume-outcome studies.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature.

Authors:  Ethan A Halm; Clara Lee; Mark R Chassin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-17       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon's training, certification, and experience.

Authors:  Jay B Prystowsky; Georges Bordage; Joseph M Feinglass
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Association of hospital procedure volume and outcomes in patients with colon cancer at high risk for recurrence.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Paul J Catalano; Deborah Schrag; John Z Ayanian; Daniel G Haller; Robert J Mayer; John S Macdonald; Al B Benson; Charles S Fuchs
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-10-21       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  James A Eastham; Michael W Kattan; Elyn Riedel; Colin B Begg; Thomas M Wheeler; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Victor Reuter; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Cancer statistics, 2003.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Karen F Gold; Chris L Pashos; Shilpa S Mehta; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  53 in total

1.  Variations in the quality of care at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2012-04

2.  What is the utilization of the SAGES guidelines by its members?

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William S Richardson; Robert D Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Combination surgery for erectile dysfunction and male incontinence.

Authors:  Dominic Lee; O Lenaine Westney; Run Wang
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

Authors:  T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Robotic radical prostatectomy: Fools rush in, or the early bird gets the worm?

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  La prostatectomie radicale par robot : engouement ou voie de l'avenir ?

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Fast-track surgery in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: basic principles.

Authors:  O Gralla; F Haas; N Knoll; D Hadzidiakos; M Tullmann; A Romer; S Deger; V Ebeling; M Lein; A Wille; B Rehberg; S A Loening; J Roigas
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Fernando J Bianco; Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Eric A Klein; James A Eastham; J Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Surgical quality is more than volume: the association between changing urologists and complications for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Eva H DuGoff; Justin E Bekelman; Elizabeth A Stuart; Katrina Armstrong; Craig Evan Pollack
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Caroline J Savage; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.