Azeem Tariq Malik1, Usman Younis Panni2, Muhammad Usman Mirza3, Maryam Tetlay2, Shahryar Noordin2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. azeemtariq94@gmail.com. 2. Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recently, strategies aimed at optimizing provider factors have been proposed, including regionalization of surgeries to higher volume centers and adoption of volume standards. With limited literature promoting the regionalization of spine surgeries, we undertook a systematic review to investigate the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review examining the association between surgeon volume and spine surgery outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing a primary or revision spinal procedure. These included anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior/posterior cervical fusion, laminectomy/decompression, anterior/posterior lumbar decompression with fusion, discectomy, and spinal deformity surgery (spine arthrodesis). RESULTS: Studies were variable in defining surgeon volume thresholds. Higher surgeon volume was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative complications, a lower length of stay (LOS), lower cost of hospital stay and a lower risk of readmissions and reoperations/revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a trend towards better outcomes for higher volume surgeons; however, further study needs to be carried out to define objective volume thresholds for individual spine surgeries for surgeons to use as a marker of proficiency.
PURPOSE: Recently, strategies aimed at optimizing provider factors have been proposed, including regionalization of surgeries to higher volume centers and adoption of volume standards. With limited literature promoting the regionalization of spine surgeries, we undertook a systematic review to investigate the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review examining the association between surgeon volume and spine surgery outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing a primary or revision spinal procedure. These included anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior/posterior cervical fusion, laminectomy/decompression, anterior/posterior lumbar decompression with fusion, discectomy, and spinal deformity surgery (spine arthrodesis). RESULTS: Studies were variable in defining surgeon volume thresholds. Higher surgeon volume was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative complications, a lower length of stay (LOS), lower cost of hospital stay and a lower risk of readmissions and reoperations/revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a trend towards better outcomes for higher volume surgeons; however, further study needs to be carried out to define objective volume thresholds for individual spine surgeries for surgeons to use as a marker of proficiency.
Authors: Rafael De la Garza Ramos; Jonathan Nakhla; Rani Nasser; Ajit Jada; Niketh Bhashyam; Merritt D Kinon; Reza Yassari Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Kevin J Bozic; Judith Maselli; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer; Thomas P Vail; Andrew D Auerbach Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Safwan Alomari; Daniel Lubelski; Sheng-Fu L Lo; Nicholas Theodore; Timothy Witham; Daniel Sciubba; Ali Bydon Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Blake M Hauser; Saksham Gupta; Edward Xu; Kyle Wu; Joshua D Bernstock; Melissa Chua; Ayaz M Khawaja; Timothy R Smith; Ian F Dunn; Regan W Bergmark; Wenya Linda Bi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 4.130