Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgeon Volume Metrics in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

Numerous reports in the 1990s pointed to a learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), critical in achieving excellent outcomes. As LC is now standard therapy for acute cholecystitis (AC), we aimed to determine if surgeon volume is still vital to patient outcomes.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to query 80,149 emergent/urgent cholecystectomies performed for AC from 1999 to 2005 in 12 states with available surgeon/hospital identifiers. Volume groups were determined based on thirds of number of cholecystectomies performed per year for AC; two groups were created [low volume (LV): ≤15/year; high volume (HV): >15/year]. Primary endpoints were the rate of open conversion, bile duct injury (BDI), in-hospital mortality, and prolonged length of stay (LOS). Propensity scores were used to create a matched cohort analysis. Logistic regression models were created to further assess the effect of surgeon volume on primary endpoints.

Results

The number of cases performed by HV surgeons increased from 24% to 44% from 1999 to 2005. HV surgeons were more likely to perform LC, had fewer conversions, lower incidence of prolonged LOS, lower BDI, and lower in-hospital mortality. After matching the volume cohorts to create a case-controlled analysis, multivariate analysis confirmed that surgeon volume was an independent predictor of open conversion and prolonged LOS but not BDI and in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Increasing surgical volume remains associated with improved outcomes after surgery during emergent/urgent admission for AC with fewer open conversions and prolonged LOS. Our results suggest that referral to HV surgeons has improved outcomes after LC for AC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, Dremsizov TT, Schmitz RJ, Kelley MA. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016–1024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pronovost PJ, Angus DC, Dorman T, Robinson KA, Dremsizov TT, Young TL. Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;288:2151–2162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Feustel P, et al. Association of surgical specialty and processes of care with patient outcomes for carotid endarterectomy. Stroke. 2001;32:2890–2897.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Legorreta AP, Silber JH, Costantino GN, Kobylinski RW, Zatz SL. Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA. 1993;270:1429–1432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rattner DW, Ferguson C, Warshaw AL. Factors associated with successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Ann Surg. 1993;217:233–236.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Livingston EH, Rege RV. A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 2004;188:205–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zacks SL, Sandler RS, Rutledge R, Brown RS Jr. A population-based cohort study comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:334–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. The Southern Surgeons Club. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1073–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Csikesz NG, Tseng JF, Shah SA. Trends in surgical management for acute cholecystitis. Surgery. 2008;144:283–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Csikesz N, Ricciardi R, Tseng JF, Shah SA. Current status of surgical management of acute cholecystitis in the United States. World J Surg. 2008;32:2230–2236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mcphee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF, et al. Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg. 2007;246:246–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117–2127.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Finlayson EV, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer JD. Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. Arch Surg. 2003;138:721–725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36:8–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eppsteiner RW, Csikesz NG, Simons JP, Tseng JF, Shah SA. High volume and outcome after liver resection: surgeon or center? J Gastrointest Surg. 2008.

  16. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics. 1968;24:295–313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cook EF, Goldman L. Asymmetric stratification. An outline for an efficient method for controlling confounding in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;127:626–639.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, Anderson GM. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med. 2007;26:754–768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757–763.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Everhart JE, Khare M, Hill M, Maurer KR. Prevalence and ethnic differences in gallbladder disease in the United States. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:632–639.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Thompson BG, Stanley JC, Upchurch GR Jr. Surgeon volume as an indicator of outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: an effect independent of specialty practice and hospital volume. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:814–821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harmon JW, Tang DG, Gordon TA, et al. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg. 1999;230:404–411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Goldfaden A, Birkmeyer NJ, Stukel TA. Volume and process of care in high-risk cancer surgery. Cancer. 2006;106:2476–2481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Marth NJ, Goodman DC. Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA. 2003;290:2703–2708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, Bass EB, Burleyson GP, Cameron JL. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg. 1998;228:71–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Riall TS, Eschbach KA, Townsend CM Jr, Nealon WH, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Trends and disparities in regionalization of pancreatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1242–1251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mcmahon AJ, Fischbacher CM, Frame SH, Macleod MC. Impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a population-based study. Lancet. 2000;356:1632–1637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ekeh AP, Monson B, Wozniak CJ, Armstrong M, Mccarthy MC. Management of acute appendicitis by an acute care surgery service: is operative intervention timely? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:43–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Green JM. When is faster better? Operative timing in acute care surgery. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:423–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shah SA, Bromberg R, Coates A, Rempel E, Simunovic M, Gallinger S. Survival after liver resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma in a large population. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:676–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–1137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article was supported by the American Society of Transplant Surgeons Faculty Development Award and Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research (SAS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes Analysis & Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, S6-432, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA

    Nicholas G. Csikesz, Anand Singla, Melissa M. Murphy, Jennifer F. Tseng & Shimul A. Shah

Authors
  1. Nicholas G. Csikesz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anand Singla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa M. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer F. Tseng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shimul A. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shimul A. Shah.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Csikesz, N.G., Singla, A., Murphy, M.M. et al. Surgeon Volume Metrics in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 55, 2398–2405 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-1035-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-1035-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation