Literature DB >> 31786700

Hospital volume and outcome in inguinal hernia repair: analysis of routine data of 133,449 patients.

M Maneck1, F Köckerling2, C Fahlenbrach3, C D Heidecke4, G Heller5, H J Meyer6, U Rolle7, E Schuler8, B Waibel9, E Jeschke1, C Günster1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Inguinal hernias are repaired using either open or minimally invasive surgical techniques. For both types of surgery it has been demonstrated that a higher annual surgeon volume is associated with a lower risk of recurrence. This present study investigated the volume-outcome implications for recurrence operations, surgical complications, rate of chronic pain requiring treatment, and 30-day mortality based on the hospital volume.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data basis used was the routine data collected throughout the Federal Republic of Germany for persons insured by the Local General Sickness Fund "AOK" who had undergone inpatient inguinal hernia repair between 2013 and 2015. Complications were recorded by means of indicators. Hospitals were divided into five groups on the basis of the annual caseload volume: 1-50, 51-75, 76-100, 101-125, and ≥ 126 inguinal hernia repairs per year. The effect of the hospital volume on the indicators was assessed using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: 133,449 inguinal hernia repairs were included. The incidence for recurrence operations was 0.95%, for surgical complications 4.22%, for chronic pain requiring treatment 2.87%, and for the 30-day mortality 0.28%. Low volume hospitals (1-50 and 51-75 inguinal hernia repairs per year) showed a significantly increased recurrence risk compared to high volume hospitals with ≥ 126 inguinal hernia repairs per year (odds ratio: 1.53 and 1.24). No significant correlations were found for the other results.
CONCLUSIONS: The study gives a detailed picture of hospital care for inguinal hernia repair in Germany. Furthermore, it was noted that the risk of hernia recurrence decreases in line with a rising caseload of the treating hospital.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Case load; Inguinal hernia; Postoperative complications; Recurrence; Routine data; Volume-outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31786700      PMCID: PMC7395912          DOI: 10.1007/s10029-019-02091-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   4.739


Introduction

Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair per year [1]. In Germany alone, 170,000 inpatient inguinal hernia repairs were carried out in 2016 [2]. Hence, inguinal hernia repair ranks among the 20 most common surgical procedures performed in German hospitals [2]. A systematic review of the perioperative complications associated with inguinal hernia repair based on 39 studies with 571,445 patients identified a rate of 2.9% (n = 16.482/577.445) [3]. The most common complications were bleeding (0.86%), surgical site infections (0.48%), and other complications (0.41%) [3]. The chronic pain rate given in the international guidelines is 0.5–6.0% [1]. The surgical technique, gender, and size of the hernia defect have a decisive impact on the rate of chronic pain requiring treatment [4-6]. Of the total collective of repaired inguinal hernias, the proportion of recurrent inguinal hernias is 11% [7]. In addition to the hernia- and patient-related influencing factors on the outcome of inguinal hernia surgery, those related to the surgeon volume and hospital volume are also being increasingly investigated [8-14]. For example, one analysis of data from the Danish Hernia Database revealed that hospitals with less than 50 inguinal hernia repairs per year were found to have a significantly higher rate of recurrence operations (9.97% vs 6.06%; p < 0.0001) compared with hospitals with 50 and more operations [9]. Another analysis by the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System in the USA did not find any difference in outcome for hospitals with less than 140 inguinal hernia repairs compared with hospitals with 140 and more operations [14]. All the other aforementioned studies [8, 10–13] focused on the specific volume of an individual surgeon and its corresponding impact on the outcome. These studies have demonstrated that, as regards the surgeon volume, surgeons with higher caseloads have a lower recurrence rate [8, 10–13]. That thus raises the issue of whether for those hospitals with several surgeons and various surgical techniques differences can also be identified at a hospital level in the outcomes in relation to the caseload. That issue is particularly interesting from a patient’s perspective since the choice of hospital is still often not based on the surgeon or surgical technique. A direct link between a hospital’s number of inguinal hernia repairs and the outcome would serve as a rough guide to choosing a hospital, as in Germany, data on hospital caseload is publicly available. The present study of routine administrative data from the German Local General Sickness Fund “AOK” [15] aimed to identify whether a correlation could be identified between the hospital volume and outcome.

Materials and methods

Data basis

The analyses were based on anonymized routine data of the German Local General Sickness Fund (AOK). These included diagnoses and procedures related to hospital care, drug prescriptions as well as insured persons’ master data such as age, gender and survival status. Included in the analysis were hospital inpatients and outpatients who during the initial hospital stay underwent inguinal hernia repair (Operations and Procedures Key [OPS]: 5-530) between 2013 and 2015 and for whom inguinal hernia (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD]-10: K40) was documented as primary diagnosis. Patients under 18 years of age, with simultaneous appendectomy (OPS: 5-470, 5-471), cholecystectomy (OPS: 5-511) or cancer disease (ICD-10: C00–C97, D00–D09, D37–D48; OPS: 8-54) as well as patients who had undergone surgery of the digestive tract (OPS: 5-42 to 5-54) within 365 days prior to hospital admission were excluded (Fig. 1). The applicable criteria had been formulated for the inguinal hernia repair service area by the Abdominal Surgery Expert Panel within the framework of the quality assurance with routine data (QSR) project of the Scientific Institute of the AOK (WIdO) [16].
Fig. 1

Applied criteria and stepwise case exclusion

Applied criteria and stepwise case exclusion For each patient a follow-up period of 365 days from discharge after the initial hospital stay was reviewed. Additional inguinal hernia operations within this period were only assessed as outcomes. In compliance with data protection regulations, the AOK data used were anonymized such that the patient’s identity was not known and could not be determined.

Endpoints

The endpoints employed corresponded to the definitions of the quality indicators used for inguinal hernia repair, which had been compiled by the Scientific Institute of the AOK [16]. The endpoints analyzed were 30-day mortality, recurrence operations within 91–365 days, chronic pain requiring treatment within 365 days, and surgical complications within 90 days. Recurrence operations within 91–365 days were documented on the basis of inguinal hernia repairs (OPS: 5-530) performed on the same side of the body as the primary repair procedure. Reoperations within 90 days were not documented for that indicator since they tended to relate to technical defects or complications. Such events were ascribed to the endpoint “surgical complications within 90 days”. Chronic pain requiring treatment within 365 days was documented on the basis of continuous drug prescriptions. A new case of continuous pain management was assumed if patients had been prescribed at least 20 defined daily doses [DDD] of analgesics in at least three-out-of-four quarters (Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classification [ATC]: M01, N02A N02B) and had not been on continuous pain management prior to surgery (≥ 20 DDDs in ≥ 3-out-of-4 quarters before admission). Surgical complications within 90 days consisted of reoperations in the abdominal and inguinal region, urologic reoperations, wound infections, bleeding requiring reoperation as well as resuscitation, pulmonary embolism and thrombosis, and general complications in association with surgical procedures [16]. The applicable ICD-10 and OPS codes are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1

Inclusion diagnoses for endpoint surgical complications, secondary diagnoses on initial hospital admission (IA) and primary diagnoses on readmission within the specified period of time (RA)

ICD-10DescriptionTime period
N45Orchitis and epididymitisIA + RA 90 days
N49.2Inflammatory disorders of scrotumRA 90 days
N50.0Atrophy of testisRA 90 days
N50.1Vascular disorders of male genital organsRA 90 days
T81.0aHemorrhage and hematoma as a complication of a procedure, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 7 days
A41Sepsis, unspecifiedRA 14 days
K65PeritonitisRA 14 days
T81.4Infection following a procedure, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 14 days
I26Pulmonary embolismIA + RA 30 days
I80.1Thrombosis, phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of femoral veinIA + RA 90 days
I80.2Thrombosis, phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of other deep vessels of lower extremitiesIA + RA 90 days
I80.3Thrombosis, phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of other extremities, unspecifiedIA + RA 90 days
I82.2Embolism and thrombosis of vena cavaIA + RA 90 days
K56Paralytic ileus and intestinal obstruction, no herniaRA 90 days
K63.1Perforation of intestine (nontraumatic)IA + RA 90 days
K66.0Peritoneal adhesionsRA 90 days
K66.1HemoperitoneumRA 90 days
K91.3Postprocedural intestinal obstructionIA + RA 90 days
K91.83Anastomosis and suture insufficiency following surgery elsewhere in the digestive tractIA + RA 90 days
K91.88Other disorders of the digestive system following medical measures, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 90 days
K91.9Disorder of the digestive system following medical measures, unspecifiedIA + RA 90 days
T81.1Shock during or resulting from a procedure, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 90 days
T81.2Accidental puncture or laceration during a procedure, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 90 days
T81.3Disruption of surgical wound, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 90 days
T81.5Foreign body accidentally left in body cavity or operation wound following a procedureIA + RA 90 days
T81.6Acute reaction to foreign substance accidentally left during a procedureIA + RA 90 days
T81.7Vascular complications following a procedure, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 90 days
T81.8Other complications of procedures, not elsewhere classifiedIA + RA 90 days
T81.9Unspecified complication of procedureIA + RA 90 days

aOnly if simultaneous presence of OPS 5-541.[0, 1, 2, 3], 5-549.5, 5-892.1[b, c], 5-916.a[0, 3], 5-983, 8-159.x, 8-190

5-892.0[b,c] or 5-896 [1, 2][b, c] within 1–7 days following surgery

Table 2

Inclusion procedures for endpoint surgical complications within the specified time period following surgery (initial hospital stay and readmissions) or only after readmission (RA) within specified time period

OPSDescriptionTime period
(a)
 5-388.3Suture of blood vessels: Aorta0–90 days
 5-388.5Suture of blood vessels: Abdominal and pelvic0–90 days
 5-388.6Suture of blood vessels: Visceral arteries0–90 days
 5-388.7Suture of blood vessels: Femoral arteries0–90 days
 5-388.9Suture of blood vessels: Deep veins0–90 days
 5-388.aSuture of blood vessels: Superficial veins0–90 days
 5-467.0Other reconstruction of intestines: Suture (following injury)0–90 days
 5-467.1Other reconstruction of intestines: Repair of intestinal fistula, open surgery1–90 days
 5-467.5Other reconstruction of intestines: Revision following anastomosisRA 90 days
 5-469.0Other operation of intestines: DecompressionRA 90 days
 5-469.1Other operation of intestines: AdhesiolysisRA 90 days
 5-469.2Other operation of intestines: AdhesiolysisRA 90 days
 5-469.eOther operation of intestines: InjectionRA 90 days
 5-530aInguinal hernia repair1–90 days
 5-540.0Incision of abdominal wall: ExplorationRA 90 days
 5-540.1Incision of abdominal wall: Extraperitoneal drainageRA 90 days
 5-540.2Incision of abdominal wall: Removal of a foreign bodyRA 90 days
 5-541.0Laparotomy and opening of retroperitoneum: Explorative laparotomy1–90 days
 5-541.1Laparotomy and opening of retroperitoneum: Laparotomy with drainage1–90 days
 5-541.2Laparotomy and opening of retroperitoneum: RelaparotomyRA 90 days
 5-541.3Laparotomy and opening of retroperitoneum: Second-look laparotomy (programmed relaparotomy)RA 90 days
 5-541.4Laparotomy and opening of retroperitoneum: Placement of temporary abdominal wall closureRA 90 days
 5-545.0Closure of abdominal wall and peritoneum: Secondary closure of abdominal wall (for postoperative wound dehiscence)1–90 days
 5-549.0Other abdominal operations: Removal of a foreign body from abdominal cavity1–90 days
 5-549.5Other abdominal operations: Laparoscopy with drainage1–90 days
 5-590.2Incision and excision of retroperitoneal tissue: Drainage, retroperitonealRA 90 days
 5-590.3Incision and excision of retroperitoneal tissue: Drainage, pelvicRA 90 days
 5-892.1[b,c]Other incision of the skin and subcutaneous tissues: Drainage ((abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–90 days
 5-892.3[b,c]Other incision of the skin and subcutaneous tissues: Implantation of a drug delivery system (abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–90 days
 5-895.0[b,c]Radical and extensive excision of diseased tissue from the skin and subcutaneous tissues: Without primary wound closure ((abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–90 days
 5-895.1[b,c]Radical and extensive excision of diseased tissue from the skin and subcutaneous tissues: Without primary wound closure, under histographic control (abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–90 days
 5-895.2[b,c]Radical and extensive excision of diseased tissue from the skin and subcutaneous tissues: With primary wound closure1–90 days
 5-895.3[b,c]Radical and extensive excision of diseased tissue from the skin and subcutaneous tissues: With primary wound closure, under histographic control (abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–90 days
 5-916.a0bTemporary soft tissue coverage: Placement or replacement of a system for vacuum sealing of the skin and subcutaneous tissues2–90 days
 5-916.a3bTemporary soft tissue coverage: Placement or replacement of a system for vacuum sealing of open abdomen2–90 days
 5-983Reoperation1–90 days
 8-153Therapeutic percutaneous puncture of abdominal cavity1–90 days
 8-159.xOther therapeutic percutaneous puncture: Unspecified1–90 days
 8-176Therapeutic irrigation of the abdominal cavity with indwelling drain and temporary abdominal wall closure1–90 days
 8-190bSpecial bandaging techniques2–90 days
 5-578.0Other plastic reconstruction of urinary bladder: Suture (following injury)0–30 days
 5-622Orchidectomy1–90 days
 5-639.1Other operations of spermatic cord, epididymis and vas deferens: Incision of spermatic cordRA 90 days
 5-639.2Other operations of spermatic cord, epididymis and vas deferens: Adhesiolysis of spermatic cordRA 90 days
 5-639.xOther operations of spermatic cord, epididymis and vas deferens: UnspecifiedRA 90 days
 8-132.3Manipulations of urinary bladder: Irrigation, continuousRA 30 days
 8-800Transfusion of whole blood, erythrocyte concentrate and thrombocyte concentrate0–7 days
 5-896.1[b,c]Surgical wound toilet (wound debridement) with removal of diseased tissue from the skin and subcutaneous tissues: Extensive ((abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–14 days
 5-896.2[b,c]Surgical wound toilet (wound debridement) with removal of diseased tissue from the skin and subcutaneous tissues: Extensive with implantation of a drug delivery system (abdominal/inguinal/genital regions)1–14 days
 8-771Cardiac or cardiopulmonary resuscitation0–30 days
 8-772Operative resuscitation0–30 days
 8-779Other resuscitation measures0–30 days

aProcedure on the same side of the body as the primary procedure

bNo simultaneous presence of decubitus ulcer (ICD-10 L89) or leg ulcer (ICD-10 I70.2 [3, 4], I83.[0,2], L97) at baseline

Inclusion diagnoses for endpoint surgical complications, secondary diagnoses on initial hospital admission (IA) and primary diagnoses on readmission within the specified period of time (RA) aOnly if simultaneous presence of OPS 5-541.[0, 1, 2, 3], 5-549.5, 5-892.1[b, c], 5-916.a[0, 3], 5-983, 8-159.x, 8-190 5-892.0[b,c] or 5-896 [1, 2][b, c] within 1–7 days following surgery Inclusion procedures for endpoint surgical complications within the specified time period following surgery (initial hospital stay and readmissions) or only after readmission (RA) within specified time period aProcedure on the same side of the body as the primary procedure bNo simultaneous presence of decubitus ulcer (ICD-10 L89) or leg ulcer (ICD-10 I70.2 [3, 4], I83.[0,2], L97) at baseline

Statistical analysis

Since only data belonging to AOK-insured persons were available, the hospital volume was projected based on the AOK inguinal hernia repair cases described above and on a hospital’s total proportion of AOK cases. Based on each hospital’s annual caseload, the AOK cases were divided into five categories (1–50, 51–75, 76–100, 101–125 and ≥ 126 cases) on an annual basis. In each case descriptive statistics were calculated as a total as well as for the individual volume categories. Trends in respect to the volume categories were verified with the Cuzick test using a significance level of 5%. All key figures given refer in each case to the evaluable caseload. Patients without complete follow-up and who did not experience a complication event within the follow-up period were censored. The effect of the hospital volume on the endpoints was calculated using multiple logistic regression models. Hospitals with the highest caseloads were used as reference category. The regression models included the hospital volume while also making adjustment for age, gender, surgical technique, comorbidities, and other risk factors such as recurrence status, incarceration, extent of the operation, and preoperative medication. All parameters were defined as dichotomous variables. Age was defined on the basis of dichotomous categorical variables dividing the AOK cases into quintiles. Comorbidities were identified as per the Elixhauser definitions [17]. Cancer diseases were not considered since patients with such disease were not included in the data set. The risk factor obesity was categorized in accordance with the breakdown given in the ICD-10 catalog as grade I (BMI ≥ 30 and < 35), II (BMI ≥ 35 and < 40), and III (BMI ≥ 40) obesity as well as obesity grade unspecified. The surgical techniques were divided into three main groups: open mesh procedure (OPS: 5-530 [3, 7].[0, x]), minimally invasive mesh procedure (OPS: 5-530 [3, 7] [1, 2]), and meshfree procedure (OPS: 5-530.[0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, x, y]). Recurrence status, incarceration, extent of operation, and other risk factors were defined in accordance with the AOK’s Quality Assurance of Inpatient Care with Routine Data (QSR) specifications [16]. Model selection was performed using a stepwise backward algorithm based on a model with all adjustment variables. The calculated model was then expanded to include the factors influencing the hospital volume. All models were examined for collinearity by calculating variance inflation factors (VIF). The VIF of a covariate measures the extent of collinearity present [18-22]. If no collinearity is present for a covariate, its VIF equals 1. As the collinearity increases the VIF increases. In the literature different VIF thresholds are used. Kleinbaum et al. [18] and Montgomery et al. [19] used a value of 10 while Zuur et al. [22] used a more stringent value of 3. For endpoints significantly impacted by the hospital volume the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated with the logistic model [23]. If theoretically patients were reassigned from one category to the reference category, the NNT is the number of patients needed to be treated to prevent one complication. The total number of preventable complications of a category is equal to the quotient of the respective caseload and NNT. All evaluations were performed with the software STATA14.2 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Results

The investigated data set comprised 133,449 AOK cases from 1060 hospitals for the years 2013–2015. These include all types of hospitals, e.g., government hospitals, private hospitals, university hospitals, and small community hospitals, in which AOK-insured patients were treated. The median patient age was 59 years (IQR: 47–73). The proportion of female patients was 11.6%. Detailed descriptive statistics are given in Table 3. Hernia recurrence present on admission was observed in 11.7% of patients and incarceration in 9.4%. The proportions of patients with incarceration, emergency, preoperative antithrombotic therapy as well as with comorbidities such as cardiac arrhythmia, COPD, renal failure or renal insufficiency significantly declined in line with rising hospital caseload volumes. By contrast, the proportion of patients with bilateral procedure or simultaneous umbilical hernias increased. In total, 55.9% of patients were treated with a minimally invasive mesh procedure, 37.9% with open mesh procedure, and 6.2% with open suture procedure. In line with increasing caseload volumes the proportion of minimally invasive mesh procedures rose from 40.1% in hospitals with the lowest caseload to 59.4% in those with the highest caseload. At the same time, the proportion of open mesh procedures dropped from 49.3 to 34.8% and the proportion of open suture procedures from 10.6 to 5.8%.
Table 3

Descriptive statistics of the included AOK cases (2013–2015), presented as a total figure and in accordance with volume categories (I: 1–50, II: 51–75, III: 76–100, IV: 101–125, V: ≥ 126 inguinal hernia repairs per year)

TotalIIIIIIIVV
Caseloads, age and gender
 Annual caseload1–5051–7576–100101–125≥ 126
 AOK cases (N)133.4494.58612.10517.98520.77677.997
 Age (median; IQR)59 (47–73)60 (49–74)61 (48–74)60 (48–74)60 (48–73)59 (47–73)
 Gender (female, %)11.3311.1610.0411.1511.2011.61
Risk factors and surgical technique (%)
 Recurrence present on admission11.6612.1011.3112.1211.7711.55
 Incarceration9.4210.6411.9311.109.868.45
 Gangrene0.440.480.450.500.460.42
 Emergency4.084.625.154.964.363.60
 Bilateral procedure15.619.9711.5512.6414.5617.53
 Intestinal procedure0.350.440.350.420.320.34
 Simultaneous repair of umbilical hernia5.353.994.384.734.935.84
 Simultaneous repair of femoral hernia0.380.440.360.360.370.39
 Simultaneous repair of incisional hernia0.320.260.280.330.320.32
 Outpatient repair11.2113.0612.4311.0811.7910.79
 Open suture procedure6.2010.607.457.095.375.76
 Open mesh procedure37.9249.3043.8941.0340.8534.82
 Minimally invasive mesh procedure55.8940.1048.6651.8853.7859.42
Preoperative medication (%)
 Immunosuppressants0.740.760.700.710.730.75
 Systemic glucocorticoids1.701.921.761.851.551.69
 Antithrombotics13.1014.1714.4613.8813.7212.48
 Treatment for chronic inflammatory bowel disease0.320.310.370.360.340.31
BMI and Elixhauser comorbiditiesa (%)
 Obesity grade, unspecified0.300.440.230.370.260.30
 Grade I obesity2.793.472.732.662.812.79
 Grade II obesity0.931.020.980.861.040.91
 Grade III obesity0.360.570.400.360.340.35
 Hypertension, no complications31.3434.8934.6933.3732.3629.87
 Cardiac arrhythmia8.029.169.249.138.397.41
 Diabetes, no complications7.228.707.738.017.476.81
 Chronic lung disease5.386.136.395.675.355.12
 Hypothyroidism4.324.214.224.244.244.39
 Congestive heart disease3.374.274.223.963.712.95
 Real failure/insufficiency3.133.923.883.463.462.80
 Peripheral occlusive vascular disease2.302.942.452.672.372.13
 Disorders of the water and electrolyte balance as well as of the acid–base balance1.972.252.192.161.941.88
 Other neurologic diseases1.922.352.002.172.041.78
 Heart valve disease1.822.182.082.201.851.67
 Coagulopathy1.681.921.961.881.751.56
 Depression1.662.201.861.831.701.54
 Hypertension, with complications1.551.921.741.791.741.38

aComorbidities with a total incidence of less than 1% are not presented (diabetes with complications, liver disease, alcohol abuse, paralysis, rheumatoid disease, psychosis, pulmonary heart disease and diseases of the pulmonary circulation, weight loss, deficiency anemia, drug abuse, and non-bleeding peptic ulcer)

Descriptive statistics of the included AOK cases (2013–2015), presented as a total figure and in accordance with volume categories (I: 1–50, II: 51–75, III: 76–100, IV: 101–125, V: ≥ 126 inguinal hernia repairs per year) aComorbidities with a total incidence of less than 1% are not presented (diabetes with complications, liver disease, alcohol abuse, paralysis, rheumatoid disease, psychosis, pulmonary heart disease and diseases of the pulmonary circulation, weight loss, deficiency anemia, drug abuse, and non-bleeding peptic ulcer) Table 4 illustrates the endpoint frequencies. A surgical complication within 90 days occurred in 4.2% of patients and recurrence operation within 91–365 days was performed in 1.0% of cases. Chronic pain requiring treatment within 365 days was observed in 2.9% of patients. The mortality rate within 30 days of admission was 0.3%. All four endpoints exhibited a significant trend and declined in line with a rising caseload volume. The proportionately greatest decrease of 32.8% was observed in the recurrence operations. Their proportion declined from 1.4% in the lowest caseload to 0.9% in the highest caseload volume category.
Table 4

Unadjusted frequencies of the endpoint events studied, presented as a total figure and in accordance with volume categories (I: 1–50, II: 51–75, III: 76–100, IV: 101–125, V: ≥ 126 inguinal hernia repairs per year)

Total (%)I (%)II (%)III (%)IV (%)V (%)P
Surgical complications (90 days)4.224.494.614.554.104.110.001
Recurrence (91–365 days)0.951.381.111.000.840.930.003
Pain management (365 days)2.873.313.032.842.942.800.043
Mortality (30 days)0.280.310.350.370.270.250.010
Unadjusted frequencies of the endpoint events studied, presented as a total figure and in accordance with volume categories (I: 1–50, II: 51–75, III: 76–100, IV: 101–125, V: ≥ 126 inguinal hernia repairs per year)

Influence of the caseload volume

The results of logistic regression analysis are presented in Table 5. The hospital volume had a significant influence on the risk-adjusted recurrence rate. The risk of recurrence operation in the two lowest caseload categories (1–50 cases and 51–75 cases per year) compared with the highest caseload category was increased by 53% and 24%, respectively (OR: 1.53 and 1.24). Had these cases been treated in the same way as the highest caseload category 22 (36.1%) and 27 (20.9%), respectively, of recurrence operations could possibly have been prevented in these categories (NNT: 212 and 451, respectively). The decreasing odds ratios in line with increasing caseload point to a linear volume-outcome relationship. Other factors associated with an increasing risk were, e.g., the initial recurrence status, bilateral operation and simultaneous repair of a femoral hernia, drug abuse, and disorders of the water and electrolyte balance as well as of the acid–base balance. The use of a mesh procedure as well as patient age ≥ 76 years reduced the risk of recurrence procedure.
Table 5

Logistic regression analysis for assessment of the influencing factors (odds ratio) on the endpoints investigated

Influencing factorsSurgical complications (90 days)Recurrence procedure (91–365 days)Pain management (365 days)Mortality (30 days)
Volume categories (caseload annual)
 I (1–50)0.94 (0.79–1.13)1.53 (1.17–1.98)1.09 (0.93–1.28)1.00 (0.55–1.82)
 II (51–75)1.01 (0.90–1.14)1.24 (1.01–1.55)1.03 (0.91–1.16)1.06 (0.71–1.58)
 III (76–100)1.01 (0.91–1.12)1.10 (0.91–1.34)0.97 (0.87–1.07)1.11 (0.82–1.50)
 IV (101–125)0.94 (0.85–1.05)0.93 (0.77–1.12)1.02 (0.93–1.12)0.83 (0.59–1.17)
 V (≥ 126)1 (reference)1 (reference)1 (reference)1 (reference)
Age in years
 18–441 (reference)1 (reference)1 (reference)1 (reference)
 45–551.20 (1.07–1.35)1.93 (1.69–2.21)
 56–641.31 (1.16–1.49)2.05 (1.79–2.35)
 65–751.51 (1.35–1.69)1.96 (1.71–2.25)4.98 (2.95–8.41)
 76–1021.81 (1.60–2.04)0.78 (0.66–0.92)2.46 (2.14–2.83)13.7 (8.47–22.16)
Risk factors and surgical technique
 Gender (female)1.54 (1.40–1.68)
 Recurrence present on admission1.32 (1.22–1.44)1.36 (1.17–1.59)1.20 (1.10–1.32)
 Incarceration1.71 (1.58–1.85)2.40 (1.73–3.33)
 Gangrene2.17 (1.62–2.89)2.77 (1.46–5.25)
 Emergency1.86 (1.32–2.63)
 Bilateral operation1.23 (1.12–1.35)1.58 (1.38–1.81)1.12 (1.02–1.24)
 Intestinal procedure3.77 (2.78–5.12)1.97 (1.17–3.30)
 Umbilical hernia repair2.03 (1.16–3.55)
 Femoral hernia repair1.51 (1.05–2.17)2.12 (1.12 – 4.00)
 Incisional hernia repair1.78 (1.22–2.58)
 Preoperative therapy with systemic glucocorticoids1.29 (1.09–1.52)2.04 (1.70–2.46)2.15 (1.35–3.41)
 Preoperative antithrombotic therapy1.11 (1.01–1.21)1.16 (1.06–1.28)
 Day care surgical repair0.09 (0.01–0.62)
 Open mesh procedure0.63 (0.51–0.78)0.42 (0.34–0.52)0.52 (0.39–0.70)
 Minimally invasive mesh procedure0.48 (0.38–0.60)0.51 (0.41–0.62)0.91 (0.84–0.98)0.22 (0.15–0.33)
BMI and Elixhauser comorbidities
 Grade II obesity1.63 (1.30–2.06)1.70 (1.32–2.20)
 Grade III obesity3.25 (2.41–4.40)2.49 (1.72–3.60)
 Grade obesity unspecified1.65 (1.06–2.55)
 Alcohol abuse2.05 (1.55–2.73)
 Cardiac arrhythmia1.36 (1.23–1.50)1.63 (1.25–2.12)
 Congestive heart disease1.17 (1.03–1.32)1.34 (1.16–1.54)2.41 (1.79–3.24)
 Coagulopathy2.51 (2.20–2.86)2.27 (1.62–3.17)
 Chronic lung disease1.51 (1.35–1.70)
 Deficiency anemia1.70 (1.17–2.47)
 Depression1.43 (1.20–1.71)1.39 (1.13–1.71)
 Diabetes, with complications1.39 (1.04–1.86)
 Diabetes, no complications1.13 (1.03–1.24)1.21 (1.09–1.35)
 Drug abuse3.43 (1.61–7.28)2.40 (1.40–4.13)
 Disorders of the water and electrolyte balance as well as of the acid–base balance3.04 (2.65–3.48)1.65 (1.17–2.32)1.26 (1.05–1.51)3.73 (2.82–4.95)
 Hypertension, with complications0.76 (0.61–0.94)0.38 (0.23–0.63)
 Hypertension, no complications1.18 (1.09–1.28)0.59 (0.47–0.75)
 Liver disease2.33 (1.89–2.86)4.86 (2.99–7.91)
 Other neurologic diseases1.62 (1.05–2.52)
 Paralysis1.49 (1.09–2.03)
 Pulmonary heart disease and diseases of the pulmonary circulation1.61 (1.18–2.19)1.81 (1.04–3.14)
 Peripheral occlusive vascular disease1.41 (1.19–1.67)
 Real failure/insufficiency1.26 (1.12–1.43)1.52 (1.14–2.04)
 Rheumatoid disease2.02 (1.52–2.68)
 Heart valve disease1.26 (1.07–1.49)
 Weight loss1.94 (1.34–2.82)2.40 (1.29–4.46)

Risk factors denoted by “–“were not included in risk adjustment because of a lack of significance

Logistic regression analysis for assessment of the influencing factors (odds ratio) on the endpoints investigated Risk factors denoted by “–“were not included in risk adjustment because of a lack of significance For the endpoints surgical complications within 90 days, chronic pain requiring treatment within 365 days and 30-day mortality, the hospital volume was not found to have any significant influence. Factors that greatly increased the risk of surgical complications were the presence of gangrene, an intestinal procedure, grade III obesity or disorders of the water and electrolyte balance as well as of the acid–base balance. For chronic pain requiring treatment the factors patient age ≥ 76 years, grade III obesity and drug abuse exhibited a strong risk-increasing impact. As regards the 30-day mortality, patient age (≥ 76 and 65–75 years) had by far the greatest influence. Other risk-increasing factors were the presence of gangrene, liver diseases, and disorders of the water and electrolyte balance as well as of the acid–base balance. We calculated VIFs for all covariates of the presented models. Table 6 shows the mean and maximum VIF for each model. With the exception of one covariate used in the model for surgical complications all VIFs were below 3. These results indicate that multicollinearity is not an issue. Especially not in the case of recurrence procedures. In addition not all covariates listed in Table 3 were present in each model. The footnote of Table 5 indicates that the specific covariate was removed from model due to lack of significance. For example, in the model of recurrence procedures only 12 covariates were included.
Table 6

Mean and maximal variance inflation factor of covariates used within the presented multiple logistic regression models

Logistic modelMean VIFMaximal VIF of a single predictor
Surgical complications1.373.33
Recurrence procedure1.231.75
Pain management1.232.06
Mortality1.332.16
Mean and maximal variance inflation factor of covariates used within the presented multiple logistic regression models

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between hospital volume and outcome on the basis of 133,449 inguinal hernia repairs from 1060 hospitals. The analysis demonstrated that caseload volume had a significant influence on the endpoint recurrence operation within 91–365 days. The risk of recurrence operation was significantly increased in hospitals with less than 76 inguinal hernia repairs per year. The hospital volume had no impact on the other endpoints studied. The volume-outcome correlation identified for recurrence operations concords with the findings of the international studies cited above. These investigated both the influence of the surgeon volume [8, 10–13] and the influence of the hospital volume [9, 14]. Using five volume categories it was possible to confirm the existing volume impact at a cutoff point of 50 procedures per year [9] as well as absence of such volume effect at a cutoff point of 140 procedures per year [14]. In the present study already for 76 procedures per year no influence of the hospital volume could be detected. For the surgeon volume Köckerling et al. and Aquina et al. each reported a cutoff point of 25 cases per year based on laparoscopic [12] and open surgical procedures [14]. While these cutoff points are essentially lower, they concord with the findings reported here since in general a hospital’s caseload is distributed across several surgeons and surgical techniques. However, hospital volume should not be treated as equivalent to surgeon volume. It rather addresses the experience of the entire treatment chain within a hospital. This includes not only the experience of the surgeon but also the experience of, e.g., surgical assistances, nurses, post operational treatment and material management. In addition to demonstrating the complication risks in relation to the caseload volume, the present study investigated the implications of reassignment of patients from the categories with significantly increased complication risks to the highest caseload category. In the low caseload categories it would have been possible theoretically to prevent one-out-of-every three and one-out-of-every five recurrence operations, respectively. However, in total that relates to only 59 recurrence operations since the caseloads in these categories, accounting for a total proportion of 12.5%, were markedly smaller. Other endpoints were investigated individually in the study by Köckerling et al. [12]. As in the present study, the authors did not identify any volume-outcome correlations for chronic pain requiring treatment or for peri- and postoperative complications, comparable with the surgical complications’ endpoint employed in this present study. The different distribution of surgical techniques observed in relation to the caseload volume has also been reported in the literature [8, 14]. Minimally invasive surgical techniques, in particular, have greater complexity and may therefore be used more often in the high caseload hospitals. Additionally we observed that patients in low volume hospitals tend to have more comorbidities and thus might be more difficult to treat. However, regarding the presented volume effects all patient specific characteristic were taken into account by the multiple regression analysis if they had a significant influence. Our results indicate that especially those patients should be treated in experienced hospitals to avoid complications. To determine why these patients were treated more often by low volume hospitals more research is needed.

Limitations

The study has a number of limitations. First, it is based on secondary analysis of routine data. Under- or overdocumentation of individual events cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, only events reflected in the catalog systems could be evaluated. The OPS catalog made no provision for differentiation between the various surgical techniques. Nor can the size and location of the inguinal hernia be documented on the basis of the catalog systems. There are also limitations with regard to external validity of the patient characteristics and endpoint frequencies since the patient collective studied was composed exclusively of AOK-insured persons. Although the collective of AOK-insured persons accounts for more than one-third of hospital cases in Germany, there are certain differences versus the population of persons insured by other statutory sickness funds in terms of the age structure and comorbidity profile [24]. Besides, this study includes only in- and outpatient inguinal hernia repairs performed in hospitals with no account taken of outpatient repairs performed by contractual statutory health insurance surgeons outside hospitals.

Conclusion

The present study of current data demonstrates a clear correlation between hospital volume and the recurrence operation rate following inguinal hernia repairs. Hospitals with less than 51 and 76 inguinal hernia repairs per year have a significantly higher risk of recurrence operations. One-out-of-every three and one-out-of-every five recurrence operations for patients in these hospitals could possibly have been avoided had these patients been operated on in high volume hospitals. Therefore, from a patient’s perspective the number of inguinal hernia repairs performed per year can serve as a guide to choosing a hospital. For the additional endpoints investigated, i.e., chronic pain requiring treatment, surgical complications and 30-day mortality, no correlation was identified between the hospital volume and complication rate.
  17 in total

1.  Absolute risk reductions, relative risks, relative risk reductions, and numbers needed to treat can be obtained from a logistic regression model.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Lichtenstein Versus Total Extraperitoneal Patch Plasty Versus Transabdominal Patch Plasty Technique for Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Registry-based, Propensity Score-matched Comparison of 57,906 Patients.

Authors:  Ferdinand Köckerling; Reinhard Bittner; Michael Kofler; Franz Mayer; Daniela Adolf; Andreas Kuthe; Dirk Weyhe
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Influencing Factors on the Outcome in Female Groin Hernia Repair: A Registry-based Multivariable Analysis of 15,601 Patients.

Authors:  Ferdinand Köckerling; Ralph Lorenz; Martin Hukauf; Henning Grau; Dietmar Jacob; René Fortelny; Andreas Koch
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Comparing routine administrative data with registry data for assessing quality of hospital care in patients with inguinal hernia.

Authors:  F Köckerling; M Maneck; C Günster; D Adolf; M Hukauf
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Explaining variation in ventral and inguinal hernia repair outcomes: A population-based analysis.

Authors:  Christopher T Aquina; Fergal J Fleming; Adan Z Becerra; Zhaomin Xu; Bradley J Hensley; Katia Noyes; John R T Monson; Todd A Jusko
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Volume of procedures and risk of recurrence after repair of groin hernia: national register study.

Authors:  Pär Nordin; Willem van der Linden
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-21

7.  International guidelines for groin hernia management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Smaller Inguinal Hernias are Independent Risk Factors for Developing Chronic Postoperative Inguinal Pain (CPIP): A Registry-based Multivariable Analysis of 57, 999 Patients.

Authors:  Henry Hoffmann; Daniela Walther; Reinhard Bittner; Ferdinand Köckerling; Daniela Adolf; Philipp Kirchhoff
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 9.  Risk factors for perioperative complications in inguinal hernia repair - a systematic review.

Authors:  Dirk Weyhe; Navid Tabriz; Bianca Sahlmann; Verena-Nicole Uslar
Journal:  Innov Surg Sci       Date:  2017-02-25

10.  Does surgeon volume matter in the outcome of endoscopic inguinal hernia repair?

Authors:  F Köckerling; R Bittner; B Kraft; M Hukauf; A Kuthe; C Schug-Pass
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  13 in total

1.  Are immunosuppressive conditions and preoperative corticosteroid treatment risk factors in inguinal hernia repair?

Authors:  M Varga; F Köckerling; F Mayer; M Lechner; R Fortelny; R Bittner; K Borhanian; D Adolf; R Bittner; K Emmanuel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  [Ventral hernias part 1 : Operative treatment techniques].

Authors:  F Köckerling; W Reinpold; C Schug-Pass
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  What are the trends in incisional hernia repair? Real-world data over 10 years from the Herniamed registry.

Authors:  F Köckerling; H Hoffmann; F Mayer; K Zarras; W Reinpold; R Fortelny; D Weyhe; B Lammers; D Adolf; C Schug-Pass
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Lower reoperation rates after open and laparoscopic groin hernia repair when performed by high-volume surgeons: a nationwide register-based study.

Authors:  C Christophersen; J J Baker; S Fonnes; K Andresen; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Inguinal hernia repairs performed for recurrence in Spain: population-based study of 16 years and 1,302,788 patients.

Authors:  S Guillaumes; M Juvany
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 2.920

Review 6.  Building a Center for Abdominal Core Health: The Importance of a Holistic Multidisciplinary Approach.

Authors:  Austin P Seaman; Kathryn A Schlosser; Daniel Eiferman; Vimal Narula; Benjamin K Poulose; Jeffrey E Janis
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 3.267

7.  Proctored preceptorship model for learning eTEP repair for inguinal hernia for general surgery residents.

Authors:  Y Mnouskin; D Assaf; G Barkon-Steinberg; J Rachmuth; I Carmeli; A Keidar; S Rayman
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 2.920

8.  Analysis of 4,015 recurrent incisional hernia repairs from the Herniamed registry: risk factors and outcomes.

Authors:  H Hoffmann; F Köckerling; D Adolf; F Mayer; D Weyhe; W Reinpold; R Fortelny; P Kirchhoff
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 4.739

9.  Inguinal hernia repair in Spain. A population-based study of 263,283 patients: factors associated with the choice of laparoscopic approach.

Authors:  S Guillaumes; C Hoyuela; N J Hidalgo; M Juvany; I Bachero; J Ardid; A Martrat; M Trias
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2021-04-10       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Incarcerated multiple recurrent inguinal hernia with incidental finding of textiloma in the abdominal wall from previous hernia repair.

Authors:  Andrej Nikolovski; Shqipe Misimi; Edita Minova
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2022-01-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.