Dataset Information

Influence of hospital volume on nephrectomy mortality and complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis stratified by surgical type.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The provision of complex surgery is increasingly centralised to high-volume (HV) specialist hospitals. Evidence to support nephrectomy centralisation however has been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between hospital case volumes and perioperative outcomes in radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy.

Methods

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2016. Pooled effect estimates for nephrectomy mortality and complications were calculated for each nephrectomy type using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the effects of heterogeneity on the pooled effect estimates by excluding studies with the heaviest weighting, lowest methodological score and most likely to introduce bias from misclassification of standardised hospital volume.

Results

Some 226 372 patients from 16 publications were included in our review and meta-analysis. Considerable between-study heterogeneity was noted and only a few reported volume-outcome relationships specifically in partial nephrectomy or nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy.HV hospitals were correlated with a 26% and 52% reduction in mortality for radical nephrectomy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90, p<0.01) and nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, p<0.01), respectively. In addition, radical nephrectomy in HV hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction in complications (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92, p<0.01). No significant volume-outcome relationship in mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.26, p=0.73) or complications (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30, p=0.44) was observed for partial nephrectomy.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that patients undergoing radical nephrectomy have improved outcomes when treated by HV hospitals. Evidence of this in partial nephrectomy and nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy is however not yet clear and could be secondary to the low number of studies included and the small patient number in our analyses. Further investigation is warranted to establish the full potential of nephrectomy centralisation particularly as existing evidence is of low quality with significant heterogeneity.

SUBMITTER: Hsu RCJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5588977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Accumulation of the literature has suggested an inverse association between healthcare provider volume and mortality for a wide variety of surgical procedures. This study aimed to perform meta-analysis of meta-analyses (umbrella review) of observational studies and to summarize existing evidence for associations of healthcare provider volume with mortality in major operations.We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library, and screening of references.Meta-analyses of observational studies examining the association of hospital and surgeon volume with mortality following major operations. The primary outcome is all-cause short-term morality after surgery. Meta-analyses of observational studies of hospital/surgeon volume and mortality were included. Overall level of evidence was classified as convincing (class I), highly suggestive (class II), suggestive (class III), weak (class IV), and non-significant (class V) based on the significance of the random-effects summary odds ratio (OR), number of cases, small-study effects, excess significance bias, prediction intervals, and heterogeneity.Twenty meta-analyses including 4,520,720 patients were included, with 19 types of surgical procedures for hospital volume and 11 types of surgical procedures for surgeon volume. Nominally significant reductions were found in odds ratio in 82% to 84% of surgical procedures in both hospital and surgeon volume-mortality associations. To summarize the overall level of evidence, however, only one surgical procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) fulfilled the criteria of class I and II for both hospital and surgeon volume and mortality relationships, with a decrease in OR for hospital (0.42, 95% confidence interval[CI] [0.35-0.51]) and for surgeon (0.38, 95% CI [0.30-0.49]), respectively. In contrast, most of the procedures appeared to be weak or "non-significant."Only a very few surgical procedures such as pancreaticoduodenectomy appeared to have convincing evidence on the inverse surgeon volume-mortality associations, and yet most surgical procedures resulted in having weak or "non-significant" evidence. Therefore, healthcare professionals and policy makers might be required to steer their centralization policy more carefully unless more robust, higher-quality evidence emerges, particularly for procedures considered as having a weak or non-significant evidence level including total knee replacement, thyroidectomy, bariatric surgery, radical cystectomy, and rectal and colorectal cancer resections.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the current trends in renal cancer surgery, as well as to compare the perioperative outcomes of partial versus radical nephrectomy.MethodsWe used the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND), provided by the Research Data Center of the Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005-2021). We report the largest study in the field, with 317,843 patients and multiple patient-level analyses.ResultsOverall, 123,924 (39%) patients underwent partial and 193,919 (61%) underwent radical nephrectomy in Germany from 2005 to 2021. Of them, 57,308 (18%) were operated on in low-, 142,702 (45%) in intermediate-, and 117,833 (37%) in high-volume centers. A total of 249,333 (78%) patients underwent open, 44,994 (14%) laparoscopic, and 23,516 (8%) robotic nephrectomy. The number of patients undergoing renal surgery remained relatively stable from 2005 to 2021. Over the study period, the utilization of partial nephrectomy increased threefold, while radical nephrectomy decreased by about 40%. After adjusting for major risk factors in the multivariate regression analysis, radical nephrectomy was associated with 3.2-fold higher odds (95% CI: 3.2 to 3.9, p < 0.001) of 30-day mortality, longer hospitalization by 1.9 days (95% CI: 1.9 to 2, p < 0.001), and higher inpatient costs by EUR 1778 (95% CI: 1694 to 1862, p < 0.001) compared to partial nephrectomy. Furthermore, radical nephrectomy had a higher risk of in-hospital transfusion (p < 0.001), sepsis (p < 0.001), acute respiratory failure (p < 0.001), acute kidney disease (p < 0.001), acute thromboembolism (p < 0.001), surgical wound infection (p < 0.001), ileus (p < 0.001), intensive care unit admission (p < 0.001), and pancreatitis (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMore patients are offered partial nephrectomy in Germany. Patients undergoing radical nephrectomy present with a higher rate of concomitant risk factors and have increased perioperative morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and increased in-hospital costs.