BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, there has been a rapid decline in adverse events after bariatric surgery. As a result, it is possible that the influence of hospital volume on outcomes has attenuated over time. The objective of the present study was to examine whether the relationship between hospital volume and adverse events has persisted in the era of laparoscopic surgery. This study is based on analysis of State Inpatient Databases (SID) for 12 states from 2006 through 2011, which included 446,127 patients. METHODS: Using hospital discharge data, changes in serious complications, reoperations and mortality over time, and the impact of hospital volume on outcomes among patients undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) were studied. Hospitals were stratified by operative volume, and using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient characteristics and procedure-type, the relationships between hospital volume and outcomes during 3 2-year periods were examined: 2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2010-2011. RESULTS: The rate of reoperations and mortality were low, and there were no significant differences between the highest (>125 cases/yr) and lowest (<50 cases/yr) volume hospitals for both LAGB and LRYGB. The volume-outcome relationship was most prominent when examining rates of adjusted odds ratios for serious complications at the lowest volume hospitals compared with the highest volume hospitals (LAGB: 1.65 [CI: 1.18, 2.30] for 2006-2007, 1.81 [CI: 1.36, 2.41] for 2008-2009, and 2.08 [CI:1.40, 3.09] for 2010-2011; LRYGB: 1.55 [CI:1.23, 1.95] for 2006-2007, 1.39 [CI:1.09, 1.76], and 1.39 [CI:1.07, 1.80] for 2010-2011). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes improved over the study period at both high- and low-volume volume hospitals. There remain significant differences in serious complications between the highest and lowest volume hospitals for both stapled and nonstapled procedures.
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, there has been a rapid decline in adverse events after bariatric surgery. As a result, it is possible that the influence of hospital volume on outcomes has attenuated over time. The objective of the present study was to examine whether the relationship between hospital volume and adverse events has persisted in the era of laparoscopic surgery. This study is based on analysis of State Inpatient Databases (SID) for 12 states from 2006 through 2011, which included 446,127 patients. METHODS: Using hospital discharge data, changes in serious complications, reoperations and mortality over time, and the impact of hospital volume on outcomes among patients undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) were studied. Hospitals were stratified by operative volume, and using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient characteristics and procedure-type, the relationships between hospital volume and outcomes during 3 2-year periods were examined: 2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2010-2011. RESULTS: The rate of reoperations and mortality were low, and there were no significant differences between the highest (>125 cases/yr) and lowest (<50 cases/yr) volume hospitals for both LAGB and LRYGB. The volume-outcome relationship was most prominent when examining rates of adjusted odds ratios for serious complications at the lowest volume hospitals compared with the highest volume hospitals (LAGB: 1.65 [CI: 1.18, 2.30] for 2006-2007, 1.81 [CI: 1.36, 2.41] for 2008-2009, and 2.08 [CI:1.40, 3.09] for 2010-2011; LRYGB: 1.55 [CI:1.23, 1.95] for 2006-2007, 1.39 [CI:1.09, 1.76], and 1.39 [CI:1.07, 1.80] for 2010-2011). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes improved over the study period at both high- and low-volume volume hospitals. There remain significant differences in serious complications between the highest and lowest volume hospitals for both stapled and nonstapled procedures.
Authors: Matthew M Hutter; Sheldon Randall; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; William M Abbott; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kenneth B Jones; Joseph D Afram; Peter N Benotti; Rafael F Capella; C Gary Cooper; Latham Flanagan; Steven Hendrick; L Michael Howell; Mark T Jaroch; Kerry Kole; Oscar C Lirio; James A Sapala; Michael P Schuhknecht; Robert P Shapiro; William A Sweet; Michael H Wood Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Shanu N Kothari; William C Boyd; Christopher A Larson; Heather L Gustafson; Pamela J Lambert; Michelle A Mathiason Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: David R Flum; Leon Salem; Jo Ann Broeckel Elrod; E Patchen Dellinger; Allen Cheadle; Leighton Chan Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aristithes G Doumouras; Fady Saleh; Sama Anvari; Scott Gmora; Mehran Anvari; Dennis Hong Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Oliver A Varban; Caprice C Greenberg; Jon Schram; Amir A Ghaferi; Joythi R Thumma; Arthur M Carlin; Justin B Dimick Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Kathleen M Coakley; Steven A Groene; Paul D Colavita; Tanushree Prasad; Dimitris Stefanidis; Amy E Lincourt; Vedra A Augenstein; Keith Gersin; B Todd Heniford Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jason C Pradarelli; Oliver A Varban; Amir A Ghaferi; Matthew Weiner; Arthur M Carlin; Justin B Dimick Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 3.982