Hospital level under-utilization of minimally invasive surgery in the United States: retrospective review

被引:58
|
作者
Cooper, Michol A. [1 ]
Hutfless, Susan [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Segev, Dorry L. [1 ]
Ibrahim, Andrew [1 ]
Lyu, Heather [1 ]
Makary, Martin A. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Hlth Policy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Epidemiol, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
来源
关键词
LAPAROSCOPIC COLORECTAL SURGERY; OPEN APPENDECTOMY; COMPLICATIONS; RATES; URBAN;
D O I
10.1136/bmj.g4198
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To determine casemix adjusted hospital level utilization of minimally invasive surgery for four common surgical procedures (appendectomy, colectomy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and lung lobectomy) in the United States. Design Retrospective review. Setting United States. Participants Nationwide inpatient sample database, United States 2010. Methods For each procedure, a propensity score model was used to calculate the predicted proportion of minimally invasive operations for each hospital based on patient characteristics. For each procedure, hospitals were categorized into thirds (low, medium, and high) based on their actual to predicted proportion of utilization of minimally invasive surgery. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measures were the actual and predicted proportion of procedures performed with minimally invasive surgery. Secondary outcome measures included surgical complications and hospital characteristics. Results Mean hospital utilization of minimally invasive surgery was 71.0% (423/596) for appendectomy (range 40.9-93.1% (244-555)), 28.4% (154/541) for colectomy (6.7-49.8% (36/541-269/541)), 13.0% (65/499) for hysterectomy (0.0-33.6% (0/499-168/499)), and 32.0% (67/208) for lung lobectomy (3.6-65.7% (7.5/208-137/208)). Utilization of minimally invasive surgery was highly variable for each procedure type. There was noticeable discordance between actual and predicted utilization of the surgery (range of actual to predicted ratio for appendectomy 0-1.49; colectomy 0-3.88; hysterectomy 0-6.68; lung lobectomy 0-2.51). Surgical complications were less common with minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery, respectively: overall rate for appendectomy 3.94% (1439/36 513) v 7.90% (958/12 123), P<0.001; for colectomy: 13.8% (1689/12 242) v 35.8% (8837/24 687), P<0.001; for hysterectomy: 4.69% (270/5757) v 6.64% (1988/29 940), P<0.001; and for lung lobectomy: 17.1% (367/2145) v 25.4% (971/3824), P<0.05. High utilization of minimally invasive surgery was associated with urban location (appendectomy: odds ratio 4.66, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 18.5; colectomy: 4.59, 1.04 to 20.3; hysterectomy: 15.0, 2.98 to 75.0), large hospital size (hysterectomy: 8.70, 1.62 to 46.8), teaching hospital (hysterectomy: 5.41, 1.27 to 23.1), Midwest region (appendectomy: 7.85, 1.26 to 49.1), south region (appendectomy: 21.0, 3.79 to 117; colectomy: 10.0, 1.83 to 54.7), and west region (appendectomy: 9.33, 1.48 to 58.8). Conclusion Hospital utilization of minimally invasive surgery for appendectomy, colectomy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and lung lobectomy varies widely in the United States, representing a disparity in the surgical care delivered nationwide.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Minimally invasive disc surgery: a review
    J. Krugluger
    K. Knahr
    [J]. International Orthopaedics, 2001, 24 : 303 - 306
  • [32] Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery - a review
    Damoli, Isacco
    Butturini, Giovanni
    Ramera, Marco
    Paiella, Salvatore
    Marchegiani, Giovanni
    Bassi, Claudio
    [J]. VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2015, 10 (02) : 141 - 149
  • [33] Trainee Autonomy in Minimally Invasive General Surgery in the United States: Establishing a National Benchmark
    Bohnen, Jordan D.
    George, Brian C.
    Zwischenberger, Joseph B.
    Kendrick, Daniel E.
    Meyerson, Shari L.
    Schuller, Mary C.
    Fryer, Jonathan P.
    Dunnington, Gary L.
    Petrusa, Emil R.
    Gee, Denise W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION, 2020, 77 (06) : E52 - E62
  • [34] Environmental Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the United States: An Estimate of the Carbon Dioxide Footprint
    Power, Nicholas E.
    Silberstein, Jonathan L.
    Ghoneim, Tarek P.
    Guillonneau, Bertrand
    Touijer, Karim A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 (12) : 1639 - 1644
  • [35] Contemporary Trends in Radical Prostatectomy in the United States: Open vs Minimally Invasive Surgery
    Dalela, Deepansh
    Menon, Mani
    [J]. MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 2016, 91 (01) : 1 - 2
  • [36] Emergent and Urgent Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis in the United States in the Minimally Invasive and Biologic Era
    Abd El Aziz, Mohamed A.
    Larson, David W.
    Grass, Fabian
    D'Angelo, Anne-Lise D.
    Kelley, Scott R.
    Raffals, Laura E.
    Mathis, Kellie L.
    Shawki, Sherief
    [J]. DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2022, 65 (08) : 1025 - 1033
  • [37] Differences in Exposure to Minimally Invasive Surgery in a Sample of United States Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents
    Narayanamoorthy, Sujatha
    Cepeda, Catherine
    Mclaren, Rodney
    Elfeky, Amro
    [J]. CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (08)
  • [38] Minimally invasive bleb surgery versus minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: a 12-month retrospective study
    Konopinska, Joanna
    Golaszewska, Kinga
    Saeed, Emil
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [39] UNDER-UTILIZATION OF THERAPEUTIC HYPOTHERMIA AT A LARGE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL-TO COOL OR NOT TO COOL
    Premachandra, Lalith
    Abed, Kareem
    Nair, Nanda
    Bansal, Aditya
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2015, 43 (12)
  • [40] Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review
    Oppenheimer, Jeffrey H.
    DeCastro, Igor
    McDonnell, Dennis E.
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2009, 27 (03) : E9.1 - E9.15