Joshua J Shaw1, Heena P Santry, Shimul A Shah. 1. Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes Analysis & Research (SOAR), University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Electronic address: joshua.shaw3@umassmemorial.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specialized procedures such as hepatectomy are performed by a variety of specialties in surgery. We aimed to determine whether variation exists among utilization of resources, cost, and patient outcomes by specialty, surgeon case volume, and center case volume for hepatectomy. METHODS: We queried centers (n = 50) in the University Health Consortium database from 2007-2010 for patients who underwent elective hepatectomy in which specialty was designated general surgeon (n = 2685; 30%) or specialist surgeon (n = 6277; 70%), surgeon volume was designated high volume (>38 cases annually) and center volume was designated high volume (>100 cases annually). We then stratified our cohort by primary diagnosis, defined as primary tumor (n = 2241; 25%), secondary tumor (n = 5466; 61%), and benign (n = 1255; 14%). RESULTS: Specialist surgeons performed more cases for primary malignancy (primary 26% versus 15%) while general surgeons operated more for secondary malignancies (67% versus 61%) and benign disease (18% versus 13%). Specialists were associated with a shorter total length of stay (LOS) (5 d versus 6 d; P < 0.01) and lower in-hospital morbidity (7% versus 11%; P < 0.01). Patients treated by high volume surgeons or at high volume centers were less likely to die than those treated by low volume surgeons or at low volume centers, (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.89) and (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.13-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical specialization, surgeon volume and center volume may be important metrics for quality and utilization in complex procedures like hepatectomy. Further studies are necessary to link direct factors related to hospital performance in the changing healthcare environment.
BACKGROUND: Specialized procedures such as hepatectomy are performed by a variety of specialties in surgery. We aimed to determine whether variation exists among utilization of resources, cost, and patient outcomes by specialty, surgeon case volume, and center case volume for hepatectomy. METHODS: We queried centers (n = 50) in the University Health Consortium database from 2007-2010 for patients who underwent elective hepatectomy in which specialty was designated general surgeon (n = 2685; 30%) or specialist surgeon (n = 6277; 70%), surgeon volume was designated high volume (>38 cases annually) and center volume was designated high volume (>100 cases annually). We then stratified our cohort by primary diagnosis, defined as primary tumor (n = 2241; 25%), secondary tumor (n = 5466; 61%), and benign (n = 1255; 14%). RESULTS: Specialist surgeons performed more cases for primary malignancy (primary 26% versus 15%) while general surgeons operated more for secondary malignancies (67% versus 61%) and benign disease (18% versus 13%). Specialists were associated with a shorter total length of stay (LOS) (5 d versus 6 d; P < 0.01) and lower in-hospital morbidity (7% versus 11%; P < 0.01). Patients treated by high volume surgeons or at high volume centers were less likely to die than those treated by low volume surgeons or at low volume centers, (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.89) and (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.13-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical specialization, surgeon volume and center volume may be important metrics for quality and utilization in complex procedures like hepatectomy. Further studies are necessary to link direct factors related to hospital performance in the changing healthcare environment.
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
Authors: Robert W Eppsteiner; Nicholas G Csikesz; Jessica P Simons; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Deepak K Ozhathil; You Fu Li; Jillian K Smith; Jennifer F Tseng; Reza F Saidi; Adel Bozorgzadeh; Shimul A Shah Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Feng Qian; Stewart J Lustik; Carol A Diachun; Richard N Wissler; Raymond A Zollo; Laurent G Glance Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christopher S Hollenbeak; Adam R Bowman; Robert E Harbaugh; Paul N Casale; David Han Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Diane G O Saunders; Joe Win; Liliana M Cano; Les J Szabo; Sophien Kamoun; Sylvain Raffaele Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nikolaos Andreatos; Neda Amini; Faiz Gani; Georgios A Margonis; Kazunari Sasaki; Vanessa M Thompson; David J Bentrem; Bruce L Hall; Henry A Pitt; Ana Wilson; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Hanbing Zhou; Nathan D Orvets; Gabriel Merlin; Joshua Shaw; Joshua S Dines; Mark D Price; Josef K Eichinger; Xinning Li Journal: Orthop Rev (Pavia) Date: 2016-03-31