Blais Micah B, Rider Sean Michael, Sturgeon Daniel J, Blucher Justin, Zampini Jay M, Kang James D, Schoenfeld Andrew J
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017 Oct;161:65-69. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.08.009. Epub 2017 Aug 24.
There is a growing literature on the relationship between provider volume and patient outcomes, specifically within joint arthroplasty and lumbar spine surgery. Such benchmarks have yet to be established for many other spinal procedures, including cervical fusion. We sought to determine whether outcomes-based volume measures for both surgeons and hospitals can be established for cervical spine fusion procedures.
This was a retrospective review of patient data in the Florida Statewide Inpatient Dataset (SID; 2011-14). Patients identified in the Florida SID who underwent either anterior or posterior cervical fusion were identified along with the operative surgeons and the hospitals where the procedures were performed. Socio-demographic data, as well as medical and surgical characteristics were obtained, as were the development of complications and readmissions up to 90days following hospital discharge. Surgeon and hospital volume were plotted separately against the number of complications and readmissions in an adjusted spline analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was subsequently performed to assess the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on post-operative complications and readmissions.
There were 8960 patients with posterior cervical fusion and 57,108 anterior cervical fusions (total=66,068) identified for inclusion in the analysis. The patients of low-volume surgeons were found to have an increased (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.65, 2.02) likelihood of complications following anterior and posterior (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.24, 1.69) cervical fusion. Low-volume surgeons demonstrated increased likelihood of readmission, irrespective of anterior (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29, 1.47) or posterior (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16, 1.48) approach. No clinically meaningful differences in the likelihood of complications or readmissions were detected between high- and low-volume hospitals.
This study demonstrates objective volume-outcome measures for surgeons who perform anterior and posterior cervical fusions. Our results have immediate applicability to clinical practice and may be used to benchmark procedural volume. Findings with respect to hospitals speak against the need for healthcare regionalization in this specific clinical context.
关于医疗服务提供者手术量与患者治疗结果之间的关系,尤其是关节置换术和腰椎手术领域,相关文献日益增多。而对于包括颈椎融合术在内的许多其他脊柱手术,尚未建立此类基准。我们试图确定能否为颈椎融合手术建立基于手术量的外科医生和医院治疗结果衡量标准。
这是一项对佛罗里达州全州住院患者数据集(SID;2011 - 2014年)中患者数据的回顾性研究。在佛罗里达州SID中确定接受前路或后路颈椎融合术的患者,同时确定手术医生以及进行手术的医院。获取社会人口统计学数据、医疗和手术特征,以及出院后90天内并发症和再入院情况。在调整样条分析中,分别绘制外科医生手术量和医院手术量与并发症和再入院次数的关系图。随后进行多变量逻辑回归分析,以评估外科医生手术量和医院手术量对术后并发症和再入院的影响。
共确定8960例接受后路颈椎融合术患者和57108例接受前路颈椎融合术患者(总计66068例)纳入分析。研究发现,手术量少的外科医生的患者在前路(比值比1.83;95%置信区间1.65,2.02)和后路(比值比1.45;95%置信区间1.24,1.69)颈椎融合术后发生并发症的可能性增加。手术量少的外科医生的患者再入院可能性增加,无论采用前路(比值比1.37;95%置信区间1.29,1.47)还是后路(比值比1.31;95%置信区间1.16,1.48)手术方式。手术量高和低的医院在并发症或再入院可能性方面未发现有临床意义的差异。
本研究证明了针对进行前路和后路颈椎融合术的外科医生的客观手术量 - 治疗结果衡量标准。我们的结果可直接应用于临床实践,并可用于衡量手术量基准。关于医院方面的研究结果表明,在这一特定临床背景下无需进行医疗区域化。