Dataset Information

Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine whether rate of reoperation after breast conserving surgery is associated with patients' characteristics and investigate whether reoperation rates vary among English NHS trusts.

Design

Cohort study using patient level data from hospital episode statistics.

Setting

English NHS trusts.

Participants

Adult women who had breast conserving surgery between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2008.

Main outcome measure

Reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery within 3 months, adjusted using logistic regression for tumour type, age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic deprivation. Tumours were grouped by whether a carcinoma in situ component was coded at the time of the primary breast conserving surgery.

Results

55,297 women had primary breast conserving surgery in 156 NHS trusts during the three year period. 11,032 (20.0%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 20.3%) women had at least one reoperation. 10,212 (18.5%, 18.2% to 18.8%) had one reoperation only; of these, 5943 (10.7%, 10.5% to 11.0%) had another breast conserving procedure and 4269 (7.7%, 7.5% to 7.9%) had a mastectomy. Of the 45,793 women with isolated invasive disease, 8229 (18.0%) had at least one reoperation. In comparison, 2803 (29.5%) of the 9504 women with carcinoma in situ had at least one reoperation (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.0). Substantial differences were found in the adjusted reoperation rates among the NHS trusts (10th and 90th centiles 12.2% and 30.2%).

Conclusion

One in five women who had breast conserving surgery in England had a reoperation. Reoperation was nearly twice as likely when the tumour had a carcinoma in situ component coded. Women should be informed of this reoperation risk when deciding on the type of surgical treatment of their breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Jeevan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3395735 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe national reoperation rates after elective and emergency colorectal resection and to assess the feasibility of using reoperation as a quality indicator derived from routinely collected data in England.DesignRetrospective observational study of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data.SettingHES dataset, an administrative dataset covering the entire English National Health Service.ParticipantsAll patients undergoing a primary colorectal resection in England between 2000 and 2008.Main outcome measuresReoperation after colorectal resection, defined as any reoperation for an intra-abdominal procedure or wound complication within 28 days of surgery on the index or subsequent admission to hospital.ResultsThe national reoperation rate was 6.5% (15,986/246,469). A large degree of variation was identified among institutions and surgeons. Even among institutions and surgical teams with high caseloads, threefold and fivefold differences in reoperation rates were observed between the highest and lowest performing trusts and surgeons. Of the NHS trusts studied, 14.1% (22/156) had adjusted reoperation rates above the upper 99.8% control limit. Factors independently associated with higher risk of reoperation were diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.33 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.42), P<0.001), presence of multiple comorbidity (odds ratio 1.34 (1.29 to 1.39), P<0.001), social deprivation (1.14 (1.08 to 1.20) for most deprived, P<0.001), male sex (1.33 (1.29 to 1.38), P<0.001), rectal resection (1.63 (1.56 to 1.71), P<0.001), laparoscopic surgery (1.11 (1.03 to 1.20), P = 0.006), and emergency admission (1.21 (1.17 to 1.26), P<0.001).ConclusionsThere is large variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery between hospitals and surgeons in England. If data accuracy can be assured, reoperation may allow performance to be checked against national standards from current routinely collected data, alongside other indicators such as mortality.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate between-hospital variation in the probability of reoperation within 90 days of initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and the contribution of health system-level and other factors.DesignPopulation-based, retrospective cohort study.SettingNew South Wales (NSW), Australia.ParticipantsLinked administrative hospitalisation data were used to define a cohort of adult women undergoing initial BCS for breast cancer in NSW between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2013.Primary outcome measuresMultilevel, cross-classified models with patients clustered within hospitals and residential areas were used to examine factors associated with any reoperation, and either re-excision or mastectomy, within 90 days.ResultsOf 34?458 women undergoing BCS, 29.1% underwent reoperation within 90 days, half of which were mastectomies. Overall, the probability of reoperation decreased slightly over time. However, there were divergent patterns by reoperation type; the probability of re-excision increased alongside a concomitant decrease in the probability of mastectomy. Significant between-hospital variation was observed. Non-metropolitan location and surgery at low-volume hospitals were associated with a higher overall probability of reoperation, and of mastectomy specifically, after accounting for patient-level factors, calendar year and area-level socioeconomic status. The magnitude of association with geographical location and surgical volume decreased over time.ConclusionsReoperation rates within 90 days of BCS varied significantly between hospitals. For women undergoing mastectomy after BCS, this represents a dramatic change in clinical course. Multilevel modelling suggests unwarranted clinical variation may be an issue, likely due to disparities in access to multidisciplinary breast cancer care and preoperative diagnostic procedures. However, the observed reduction in disparities over time is encouraging and indicates that guidelines and policy initiatives have the potential to improve regional breast cancer care.

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide accurate risk estimates of serious adverse events after elective shoulder replacement surgery for arthritis, including age and sex specific estimates of the lifetime risk of revision surgery.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingHospital episode statistics for NHS England, including civil registration mortality data.Participants58 054 elective shoulder replacements in 51 895 adults (aged ≥50 years) between April 1998 and April 2017.Main outcome measuresThe lifetime risk of revision surgery, calculated using an actuarial life table approach and the cumulative probability method. Rates of serious adverse events at 30 and 90 days post-surgery: pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, lower respiratory tract infection, acute kidney injury, urinary tract infection, cerebrovascular events, and all cause death. Secondary outcome measures were the number of surgeries performed each year and Kaplan-Meier estimates of revision risk at 3, 5, 10, and 15 years.ResultsThe number of shoulder replacements performed each year increased 5.6-fold between 1998 and 2017. Lifetime risks of revision surgery ranged from 1 in 37 (2.7%, 95% confidence interval 2.6% to 2.8%) in women aged 85 years and older to 1 in 4 (23.6%, 23.2% to 24.0%) in men aged 55-59 years. The risks of revision were highest during the first five years after surgery. The risk of any serious adverse event at 30 days post-surgery was 1 in 28 (3.5%, 3.4% to 3.7%), and at 90 days post-surgery was 1 in 22 (4.6%, 4.4% to 4.8%). At 30 days, the relative risk of pulmonary embolism compared with baseline population risk was 61 (95% confidence interval 50 to 73) for women aged 50-64. Serious adverse events were associated with increasing age, comorbidity, and male sex. 1 in 5 (21.2%, 17.9% to 25.1%) men aged 85 years and older experienced at least one serious adverse event within 90 days.ConclusionsYounger patients, particularly men, need to be aware of a higher likelihood of early failure of shoulder replacement and the need for further and more complex revision replacement surgery. All patients should be counselled about the risks of serious adverse events. These risks are higher than previously considered, and for some could outweigh any potential benefits. Our findings caution against unchecked expansion of shoulder replacement surgery in both younger and older patients. The more accurate age and sex specific estimates of risk from this study are long overdue and should improve shared decision making between patients and clinicians.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03573765.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare 10 year mortality rates among patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and total hip replacement in England.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingEnglish hospital episode statistics database linked to mortality records from the Office for National Statistics.PopulationAll adults who underwent primary elective hip replacement for osteoarthritis from April 1999 to March 2012. The exposure of interest was prosthesis type: cemented total hip replacement, uncemented total hip replacement, and metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Confounding variables included age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, area deprivation, surgical volume, and year of operation.Main outcome measuresAll cause mortality. Propensity score matching was used to minimise confounding by indication. Kaplan-Meier plots estimated the probability of survival up to 10 years after surgery. Multilevel Cox regression modelling, stratified on matched sets, described the association between prosthesis type and time to death, accounting for variation across hospital trusts.Results7437 patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing were matched to 22,311 undergoing cemented total hip replacement; 8101 patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing were matched to 24,303 undergoing uncemented total hip replacement. 10 year rates of cumulative mortality were 271 (3.6%) for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus 1363 (6.1%) for cemented total hip replacement, and 239 (3.0%) for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus 999 (4.1%) for uncemented total hip replacement. Patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing had an increased survival probability (hazard ratio 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.59) for cemented hip replacement; 0.55 (0.47 to 0.65) for uncemented hip replacement). There was no evidence for an interaction with age or sex.ConclusionsPatients with hip osteoarthritis undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing have reduced mortality in the long term compared with those undergoing cemented or uncemented total hip replacement. This difference persisted after extensive adjustment for confounding factors available in our data. The study results can be applied to matched populations, which exclude patients who are very old and have had complex total hip replacements. Although residual confounding is possible, the observed effect size is large. These findings require validation in external cohorts and randomised clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectiveIt is typical in epidemiological research of osteoarthritis (OA) to collect data for the hand, hip, and knee. However, little population-based data exist for this disease in the foot. Thus, we addressed patterns of OA for the foot compared with the hand, hip, and knee spanning 2000/2001 to 2017/2018 in England.MethodsSecondary-care data from 3 143 928 patients with OA of the foot, hand, hip, and knee were derived from the National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Distribution, population prevalence, and incidence of joint-specific OA were stratified by age and sex.ResultsOA incidence increased significantly at the foot [3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0, 4.6)], hand [10.9% (10.1, 11.7)], hip [3.8% (2.9, 4.7)], and knee [2.9% (2.2, 3.6)] per year from 2000/2001 to 2017/2018. A higher proportion of women were diagnosed with OA, whereas greater incidence in men was estimated for the hand and hip. Foot OA presented comparable diagnosis numbers to the hand. More recently during 2012/2013 to 2017/2018, a significant rise in hip OA was estimated among younger adults, whereas knee OA decreased across all age groups. Incidence of OA in the foot and hand were particularly significant among the 75 or older age group, though bimodal age distributions were observed for both sites.ConclusionThe significant increase in secondary care records for OA in England underscores the importance of exploring possible causative factors and identifying groups most at risk. Further detailed data may be particularly important for the hip, which represents significant incidence among younger adults. Greater incidence of OA in the foot compared with the knee emphasizes the need for well-conducted epidemiological research in this area. Monitoring the performance of surgical outcomes at the population-level for this frequently affected yet understudied site could have substantial potential to reduce the socioeconomic burden it represents to the NHS.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to analyse the rate of knee arthroplasty in the population of patients with a history of arthroscopic chondroplasty of the knee, in England, over 10 years, with comparison to general population data for patients without a history of chondroplasty. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Patients undergoing arthroscopic chondroplasty in England between 2007/2008 and 2016/2017 were identified. Patients undergoing previous arthroscopic knee surgery or simultaneous cruciate ligament reconstruction or microfracture in the same knee were excluded. OUTCOMES:Patients subsequently undergoing a knee arthroplasty in the same knee were identified and mortality-adjusted survival analysis was performed (survival without undergoing knee arthroplasty). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify factors associated with knee arthroplasty. Relative risk of knee arthroplasty (total or partial) in comparison to the general population was determined. RESULTS:Through 2007 to 2017, 157 730 eligible chondroplasty patients were identified. Within 1 year, 5.91% (7984/135 197; 95% CI 5.78 to 6.03) underwent knee arthroplasty and 14.22% (8145/57 267; 95% CI 13.94 to 14.51) within 5 years. Patients aged over 30 years with a history of chondroplasty were 17.32 times (risk ratio; 95% CI 16.81 to 17.84) more likely to undergo arthroplasty than the general population without a history of chondroplasty. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cartilage lesions of the knee, treated with arthroscopic chondroplasty, are at greater risk of subsequent knee arthroplasty than the general population and for a proportion of patients, there is insufficient benefit to prevent the need for knee arthroplasty within 1 to 5 years. These important new data will inform patients of the anticipated outcomes following this procedure. The risk in comparison to non-operative treatment remains unknown and there is an urgent need for a randomised clinical trial in this population.