Schwaitzberg Steven D, Scott Daniel J, Jones Daniel B, McKinley Sophia K, Castrillion Johanna, Hunter Tina D, Michael Brunt L
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA,
Surg Endosc. 2014 Nov;28(11):3068-73. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3580-0. Epub 2014 Jun 6.
Bile duct injury (BDI) remains the dreaded complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) over the last two decades. Although the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) certification is now required for new applicants by the American Board of Surgery, the impact of FLS on procedure-specific outcomes is unknown. Moreover, the FLS content centers on fundamental education and not procedure-specific complication reduction such as BDI, magnifying the importance of understanding the educational impact of FLS on specific case types. This study reviewed the impact of FLS certification and other factors on the incidence of bile duct injury in a large insurance claims database.
In total, 53,632 LCs were reviewed from July 2009 to December 2010 from a large private payer claims database. Surgeon National Provider Identifier (NPI), FLS certification status, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) were available for each event. Each record was analyzed for evidence of any bile duct injury based on associated CPT or ICD-9 data in the claim record. Characteristics of the FLS+ and FLS- surgeon groups were analyzed by a separate reviewer blinded to clinical outcome on a large scale.
A total of 53,632 LCs were reviewed; 1748 LC were performed by 441 FLS+ surgeons; and 58,870 LCs by 10,851 FLS- surgeons. (Some procedures involved more than one surgeon). Eighty-two BDIs were identified: 8 in the FLS+ and 74 in the FLS- group. The FLS+ group had a higher rate of BDI than the FLS- group (0.47 vs. 0.14 %, p = 0.0013); however, the FLS+ group was also younger (mean age 38.2 FLS+ vs. 50.4 years) and had significantly fewer years in practice (FLS+ = 6.1 vs. FLS- = 20.7, p = 0.0012). No other complications showed differences between the groups.
NPI can be used as a linking intermediary between skills certification and outcomes on claims databases. FLS certification was not associated with a reduction in bile duct injury in this analysis, but FLS+ surgeons were also younger and less experienced overall. Since FLS lacks content specific to BDI, large-scale validated training and assessment programs targeted at BDI prevention are needed to impact the rate of this complication during cholecystectomy.
在过去二十年中,胆管损伤(BDI)仍然是腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)令人恐惧的并发症。尽管美国外科委员会现在要求新申请人获得腹腔镜手术基础(FLS)认证,但FLS对特定手术结果的影响尚不清楚。此外,FLS的内容集中在基础教育上,而不是减少特定手术的并发症,如BDI,这凸显了了解FLS对特定病例类型的教育影响的重要性。本研究在一个大型保险理赔数据库中回顾了FLS认证和其他因素对胆管损伤发生率的影响。
从一个大型私人支付者理赔数据库中回顾了2009年7月至2010年12月期间的53632例LC。每个事件都有外科医生国家提供者标识符(NPI)、FLS认证状态、国际疾病分类第九版(ICD-9)和当前手术术语(CPT)。根据理赔记录中相关的CPT或ICD-9数据,对每条记录进行分析,以寻找任何胆管损伤的证据。由一位对临床结果不知情的独立审阅者大规模分析FLS+和FLS-外科医生组的特征。
共回顾了53632例LC;441名FLS+外科医生进行了1748例LC;10851名FLS-外科医生进行了58870例LC。(有些手术涉及不止一名外科医生)。共确定了82例BDI:FLS+组8例,FLS-组74例。FLS+组的BDI发生率高于FLS-组(0.47%对0.14%,p = 0.0013);然而,FLS+组也更年轻(平均年龄38.2岁对50.4岁),并且从业年限明显更少(FLS+ = 6.1年对FLS- = 20.7年,p = 0.0012)。两组之间的其他并发症没有差异。
NPI可作为技能认证与理赔数据库结果之间的连接中介。在本分析中,FLS认证与胆管损伤的减少无关,但FLS+外科医生总体上也更年轻且经验不足。由于FLS缺乏针对BDI的特定内容,需要有针对BDI预防的大规模有效培训和评估项目,以影响胆囊切除术中这种并发症的发生率。