Literature DB >> 26945605

Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alex Mowat1, Christopher Maher2, Emma Ballard3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of gynecological surgeon volumes on patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies were selected through an electronic literature search from database inception up until September 2015 and references in published studies. Search terms included surgical volume, surgeon volume, low-volume or high-volume, and gynecology or hysterectomy or sling or pelvic floor repair or continence procedure. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: The literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We defined a low-volume surgeon (LVS) as one performing the procedure once a month or less, and studies were excluded if their definition of LVS was > ±33% of our definition. Primary outcomes were total complications, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
METHODS: All outcome data for individual studies were entered into systematic review software. When 2 or more studies evaluated a designated outcome, a meta-analysis of the entered data was undertaken as per the Cochrane database methodology. Data analysis was entered into a software product, which generated a summary of findings table that included structured and qualified grading (very low to high) of the quality for the evidence of the individual outcomes and provided a measure of effect.
RESULTS: Fourteen peer-reviewed studies with 741,760 patients were included in the systematic review. For gynecology the LVS group had an increased rate of total complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.5), intraoperative complications (OR, 1.6, 95% CI, 1.2-2.1), and postoperative complications (OR, 1.4 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). In gynecological oncology, the LVS group had higher mortality (OR, 1.9, 95% CI, 1.3-2.6). In the urogynecology group, a single study reported that the LVS group had a higher rate of any complication (risk ratio [RR], 1.4, 95% CI, -1.2-1.6). Another single study found that LVS had higher rates of reoperation for mesh complications after midurethral sling procedures (RR, 1.4, 95% CI, 1.2-1.5). The evidence is of moderate to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Gynecologists performing procedures approximately once a month or less were found to have higher rates of adverse outcomes in gynecology, gynecological oncology, and urogynecology, with higher mortality in gynecological oncology. Crown
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gynecology; outcomes; surgeon volume

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26945605     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  30 in total

1.  Impact of Travel Time on Health Care Costs and Resource Use by Phase of Care for Older Patients With Cancer.

Authors:  Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Harold D Miller; Andres Azuero; Stephanie B Wheeler; Maria Pisu; Olivia Hull; Rodney P Rocconi; Kelly M Kenzik
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  National survey of urogynecological practice patterns among United States OB/GYN oral board examinees in different practice settings.

Authors:  Andrey Petrikovets; Abigail Davenport; Sherif A El-Nashar; David Sheyn; Jeffrey Mangel; Sangeeta T Mahajan
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Importance of Estimated Blood Loss in Resource Utilization and Complications of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications.

Authors:  Emily M English; Sarah Bell; Neil S Kamdar; Carolyn W Swenson; Hallie Wiese; Daniel M Morgan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Evaluation of a novel universal robotic surgery virtual reality simulation proficiency index that will allow comparisons of users across any virtual reality simulation curriculum.

Authors:  Christopher Simmonds; Mark Brentnall; John Lenihan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  The impact of surgeon volume on patient outcome in spine surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Azeem Tariq Malik; Usman Younis Panni; Muhammad Usman Mirza; Maryam Tetlay; Shahryar Noordin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes in spine surgery: a dose-response meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui-Zi Li; Zhong Lin; Zong-Ze Li; Zeng-Yan Yang; Yang Zheng; Yong Li; Hua-Ding Lu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-11

7.  Regional consolidation of orthopedic surgery: impacts on hip fracture surgery access and outcomes.

Authors:  Sara A Kreindler; Lanette Siragusa; Eric Bohm; Wendy Rudnick; Colleen J Metge
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Pathways for Prolapse.

Authors:  Rui Wang; Michele R Hacker; Monica Richardson
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 2.091

9.  Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Risk of Surgical Complications and Posthysterectomy Hospitalization among Women Undergoing Hysterectomy for Benign Conditions.

Authors:  Lisa M Pollack; Jerry L Lowder; Matt Keller; Su-Hsin Chang; Sarah J Gehlert; Margaret A Olsen
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.137

10.  Two-Layer Compared With One-Layer Vaginal Cuff Closure at the Time of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy to Reduce Complications.

Authors:  Ann Peters; Riyas Ali; Shana Miles; Christine E Foley; Alexandra Buffie; Kristine Ruppert; Suketu M Mansuria
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 7.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.