Jeffrey J Leow1, Eugene K Leong2, Emily C Serrell3, Steven L Chang4, Russell L Gruen2, Keng Siang Png5, Lisa T Beaule6, Quoc-Dien Trinh4, Mani M Menon7, Jesse D Sammon8. 1. Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. 2. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore-Imperial College London, Singapore. 3. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. 6. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA. 7. VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 8. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Urology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA. Electronic address: jsammon79@gmail.com.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the most complex urological procedures performed. Higher surgical volume has been found previously to be associated with better patient outcomes and reduced costs to the health care system. This has resulted in some regionalization of care toward high-volume facilities and providers; however, the preponderance of RPs is still performed at low-volume institutions. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated systematic review of the association of hospital and surgeon volume on patient and system outcomes after RP, including robot-assisted RP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of literature was undertaken, searching PubMed (1959-2016) for original articles. Selection criteria included RP, hospital and/or surgeon volumes as predictor variables, categorization of hospital and/or surgeon volumes, and measurable end points. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall 49 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies demonstrated that higher-volume surgeries are associated with better outcomes including reduced mortality, morbidity, postoperative complications, length of stay, readmission, and cost-associated factors. The volume-outcome relationship is maintained in robotic surgery. Eleven studies assessed hospital and surgeon volume simultaneously, and findings reflect that neither is an independent predictor variable affecting outcomes. The studies varied in how volume cutoffs were categorized as well as how the volume-outcome relationship was methodologically evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary evidence continues to support the relationship between high-volume surgeries with improved RP outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that the volume-outcome relationship applies to robot-assisted RP and may be applied for potential cost savings in health care. An increase in the number of international studies suggests reproducibility of the association. Although regionalization of surgical care remains a contentious issue, there is an increasing body of evidence that short-term outcomes are improved at high-volume centers for RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review of the latest literature found that higher surgical volume was associated with improved outcomes for radical prostatectomy.
CONTEXT: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the most complex urological procedures performed. Higher surgical volume has been found previously to be associated with better patient outcomes and reduced costs to the health care system. This has resulted in some regionalization of care toward high-volume facilities and providers; however, the preponderance of RPs is still performed at low-volume institutions. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated systematic review of the association of hospital and surgeon volume on patient and system outcomes after RP, including robot-assisted RP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of literature was undertaken, searching PubMed (1959-2016) for original articles. Selection criteria included RP, hospital and/or surgeon volumes as predictor variables, categorization of hospital and/or surgeon volumes, and measurable end points. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall 49 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies demonstrated that higher-volume surgeries are associated with better outcomes including reduced mortality, morbidity, postoperative complications, length of stay, readmission, and cost-associated factors. The volume-outcome relationship is maintained in robotic surgery. Eleven studies assessed hospital and surgeon volume simultaneously, and findings reflect that neither is an independent predictor variable affecting outcomes. The studies varied in how volume cutoffs were categorized as well as how the volume-outcome relationship was methodologically evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary evidence continues to support the relationship between high-volume surgeries with improved RP outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that the volume-outcome relationship applies to robot-assisted RP and may be applied for potential cost savings in health care. An increase in the number of international studies suggests reproducibility of the association. Although regionalization of surgical care remains a contentious issue, there is an increasing body of evidence that short-term outcomes are improved at high-volume centers for RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review of the latest literature found that higher surgical volume was associated with improved outcomes for radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Antonio Benito Porcaro; Marco Sebben; Paolo Corsi; Alessandro Tafuri; Tania Processali; Marco Pirozzi; Nelia Amigoni; Riccardo Rizzetto; Giovanni Cacciamani; Arianna Mariotto; Alberto Diminutto; Matteo Brunelli; Vincenzo De Marco; Salvatore Siracusano; Walter Artibani Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2019-04-05
Authors: Davide Gori; Rajendra Dulal; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Maria P Fantini; Kathryn M McDonald; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-18
Authors: Brian T Kadow; Shreyas S Joshi; Alexander Kutikov; Elizabeth Handorf; Marc C Smaldone; Robert G Uzzo; Daniel M Geynisman Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-12
Authors: Jennifer Bergstrom; Alessia Aloisi; Shannon Armbruster; Ting-Tai Yen; Jvan Casarin; Mario M Leitao; Edward J Tanner; Rayna Matsuno; Karime Kalil Machado; Sean C Dowdy; Pamela T Soliman; Stephanie L Wethington; Rebecca L Stone; Kimberly L Levinson; Amanda N Fader Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: T Bittermann; R A Hubbard; M Serper; J D Lewis; S F Hohmann; L B VanWagner; D S Goldberg Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Natalie J Del Vecchio; Natoshia M Askelson; Knute D Carter; Elizabeth Chrischilles; Charles F Lynch; Mary E Charlton Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Erik Persson; Walter Cazzaniga; Fredrik Sandin; Stefan Carlsson; Göran Ahlgren; Eva Johansson; David Robinsson; Jonas Hugosson; Pär Stattin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240