BACKGROUND: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) registries gather outcomes for plastic surgery procedures. The NSQIP collects hospital data using trained nurses, and the TOPS relies on self-reported data. We endeavored to compare the TOPS and NSQIP data sets with respect to cohort characteristics and outcomes to better understand the strengths and weakness of each registry as afforded by their distinct data collection methods. STUDY DESIGN: The 2008 to 2011 TOPS and NSQIP databases were queried for breast reductions and breast reconstructions. Propensity score matching identified similar cohorts from the TOPS and NSQIP databases. Shared 30-day surgical and medical complications rates were compared across matched cohorts. RESULTS: The TOPS captured a significantly greater number of wound dehiscence occurrences (4.77%-5.47% vs 0.69%-1.17%, all P<0.001), as well as more reconstructive failures after prosthetic reconstruction (2.82% vs 0.26%, P<0.001). Medical complications were greater in NSQIP (P<0.05). Other complication rates did not differ across any procedure (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The TOPS and NSQIP capture significantly different patient populations, with TOPS' self-reported data allowing for the inclusion of private practices. This self-reporting limits TOPS' ability to identify medical complications; surgical complications and readmissions, however, were not underreported. Many surgical complications are captured by TOPS at a higher rate due to its broader definitions, and others are not captured by NSQIP at all. The TOPS and NSQIP provide complementary information with different strengths and weakness that together can guide evidence-based decision making in plastic surgery.
BACKGROUND: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) registries gather outcomes for plastic surgery procedures. The NSQIP collects hospital data using trained nurses, and the TOPS relies on self-reported data. We endeavored to compare the TOPS and NSQIP data sets with respect to cohort characteristics and outcomes to better understand the strengths and weakness of each registry as afforded by their distinct data collection methods. STUDY DESIGN: The 2008 to 2011 TOPS and NSQIP databases were queried for breast reductions and breast reconstructions. Propensity score matching identified similar cohorts from the TOPS and NSQIP databases. Shared 30-day surgical and medical complications rates were compared across matched cohorts. RESULTS: The TOPS captured a significantly greater number of wound dehiscence occurrences (4.77%-5.47% vs 0.69%-1.17%, all P<0.001), as well as more reconstructive failures after prosthetic reconstruction (2.82% vs 0.26%, P<0.001). Medical complications were greater in NSQIP (P<0.05). Other complication rates did not differ across any procedure (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The TOPS and NSQIP capture significantly different patient populations, with TOPS' self-reported data allowing for the inclusion of private practices. This self-reporting limits TOPS' ability to identify medical complications; surgical complications and readmissions, however, were not underreported. Many surgical complications are captured by TOPS at a higher rate due to its broader definitions, and others are not captured by NSQIP at all. The TOPS and NSQIP provide complementary information with different strengths and weakness that together can guide evidence-based decision making in plastic surgery.
Authors: Indranil Sinha; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins; Jennifer B Hamill; Xiaoxue Chen; Hyungjin M Kim; Gretchen Guldbrandsen; Yoon S Chun Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Jacob Veith; Willem Collier; Andrew Simpson; David Magno-Padron; Bruce Mast; Robert X Murphy; Jayant Agarwal; Alvin Kwok Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2020-05-27