Suppr超能文献

医院手术量与翻修全膝关节置换术后并发症的关系:一项大数据库研究。

What Is the Association Between Hospital Volume and Complications After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Large-database Study.

机构信息

B. F. Ricciardi, A. Y. Liu, B. Qiu, T. G. Myers, C. P. Thirukumaran, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, USA B. F. Ricciardi, C. P. Thirukumaran, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, USA.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 May;477(5):1221-1231. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000684.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Studies of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) show a correlation between hospital volume and outcomes; however, the relationship of volume to outcomes in revision TJA is not well studied.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore asked: (1) Are 90-day readmissions more likely at low-volume hospitals relative to high-volume hospitals after revision THA and TKA? (2) Are in-hospital and 90-day complications more likely at low-volume hospitals relative to high-volume hospitals after revision THA and TKA? (3) Are 30-day mortality rates higher at low-volume hospitals relative to high-volume hospitals after revision THA and TKA?

METHODS

Using 29,948 inpatient stays undergoing revision TJA from 2008 to 2014 in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database for New York State, we examined the relationship of hospital revision volume by quartile and outcomes. The top 5 percentile of hospitals was included as a separate cohort. Advantages of the SPARCS database include comprehensive catchment of all cases regardless of payer, and the ability to track each patient across hospital admissions at different institutions within the state. The outcomes of interest included 90-day all-cause readmission rates and 30- and 90-day reoperation rates, postoperative complication rates, and 30-day mortality rates. The initial cohort that met the MS-DRG and ICD-9 criteria consisted of 30,354 inpatient stays for revision hip or knee replacements. Exclusions included patients with a missing patient identifier (n = 221), missing admission or discharge dates (n = 5), and stays from hospitals that were closed during the study period (n = 180). Our final analytic cohort comprised 29,948 inpatient stays for revision hip and knee replacements from 25,977 patients who had nonmissing data points for the variables of interest. Outcomes were adjusted for underlying hospital, surgeon, and patient confounding variables. The analytic cohort included observations from 25,977 patients, 138 hospitals, 929 surgeons, 14,130 revision THAs, 11,847 revision TKAs, 15,341 female patients (59% of cohort).

RESULTS

Patients had lower all-cause 90-day readmission rates in the highest 5th percentile by volume hospitals relative to all other lower hospital volume categories. Reoperation rates within the first 90 days, however, were not different among volume categories. All-cause 90-day readmissions were higher in the quartile 4 hospitals excluding the top 5th percentile (17%) versus the top 5th percentile by volume hospitals (12%) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.5; p = 0.030). All-cause 90-day readmissions were higher in the quartile 3 hospitals (18%) relative to the top 5 percentile by volume hospitals (12%) (OR: 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; p < 0.001). All-cause 90-day readmissions were higher in quartile 2 hospitals (18%) relative to the top 5 percentile by volume hospitals (12%) (OR: 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8; p = 0.010). All-cause 90-day readmissions were higher in quartile 1 hospitals (21%) versus the top 5 percentile by volume hospitals (12%) (OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; p = 0.010). Postoperative complication rates were higher among only the quartile 1 hospitals compared with institutions in each higher-volume category after revision TJA. The odds of 90-day complications compared with quartile 1 hospitals were 0.49 (95% CI, 0.33-0.72; p = 0.010) for quartile 2, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40-0.88; p = 0.010) for quartile 3, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28-0.64; p = 0.010) for quartile 4 excluding top 5 percentile, and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.22-0.59; p = 0.010) for the top 5 percentile of hospitals. There does not appear to be an association between 30-day mortality rates and hospital volume in revision TJA. The odds of 30-day mortality compared with quartile 1 hospitals were 0.54 (95% CI, 0.20-1.46; p = 0.220) for quartile 2, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.30-1.91; p = 0.550) for quartile 3, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.22-1.49; p = 0.250) for quartile 4 excluding top 5 percentile, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.20-1.81; p = 0.370) for the top 5 percentile of hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that regionalizing revision TJA services, or concentrating surgical procedures in higher-volume hospitals, may reduce early complications rates and 90-day readmission rates. Disadvantages of regionalization include reduced access to care, increased patient travel distances, and possible capacity issues at receiving centers. Further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and negative consequences of regionalizing revision TJA services to higher-volume revision TJA institutions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

摘要

背景

研究表明初次全髋关节置换术(TJA)的医院手术量与结果之间存在相关性;然而,翻修 TJA 术后的手术量与结果之间的关系尚未得到很好的研究。

问题/目的:因此,我们提出以下问题:(1)翻修 THA 和 TKA 后,低容量医院与高容量医院相比,90 天再入院的可能性更高吗?(2)翻修 THA 和 TKA 后,低容量医院与高容量医院相比,院内和 90 天并发症的可能性更高吗?(3)翻修 THA 和 TKA 后,低容量医院与高容量医院相比,30 天死亡率更高吗?

方法

我们使用纽约州全州计划和研究合作系统(SPARCS)数据库中 2008 年至 2014 年间进行的 29948 例翻修 TJA 住院患者数据,研究了按四分位数划分的医院翻修量与结局之间的关系。将前 5%的医院归入单独队列。SPARCS 数据库的优势包括全面涵盖所有支付者的所有病例,以及能够在州内不同机构的住院期间跟踪每个患者。我们感兴趣的结局包括 90 天全因再入院率和 30-90 天再手术率、术后并发症发生率和 30 天死亡率。最初的队列包括 30354 例因髋或膝关节翻修而住院的患者,符合 MS-DRG 和 ICD-9 标准。排除标准包括:患者缺失患者标识符(n=221)、缺失入院或出院日期(n=5)和研究期间关闭的医院(n=180)。我们的最终分析队列包括 29948 例因髋、膝关节翻修而住院的患者,来自 25977 例有变量缺失数据点的患者。结局调整了基础医院、外科医生和患者混杂变量。分析队列包括来自 25977 名患者的观察结果,这些患者分别在 138 家医院、929 名外科医生、14130 例翻修 THA、11847 例翻修 TKA、15341 例女性(队列的 59%)中接受了手术。

结果

与所有其他低容量医院类别相比,最高第 5 个百分位的医院患者全因 90 天再入院率较低。然而,第 1 个 90 天内的再手术率在不同的容量类别中没有差异。在排除前 5 个百分位的医院后,第 4 个四分位数(17%)的医院全因 90 天再入院率高于前 5 个百分位的医院(12%)(比值比[OR]:1.3;95%置信区间[CI],1.0-1.5;p=0.030)。第 3 个四分位数(18%)的医院全因 90 天再入院率高于前 5 个百分位的医院(12%)(OR:1.5;95%CI,1.2-1.9;p<0.001)。第 2 个四分位数(18%)的医院全因 90 天再入院率高于前 5 个百分位的医院(12%)(OR:1.4;95%CI,1.1-1.8;p=0.010)。第 1 个四分位数(21%)的医院全因 90 天再入院率高于前 5 个百分位的医院(12%)(OR:1.6;95%CI,1.1-2.3;p=0.010)。与每个更高容量类别中的机构相比,仅第 1 个四分位数的医院术后并发症发生率更高。与第 1 个四分位数的医院相比,第 2 个四分位数的医院 90 天并发症的几率为 0.49(95%CI,0.33-0.72;p=0.010),第 3 个四分位数的医院为 0.60(95%CI,0.40-0.88;p=0.010),第 4 个四分位数(排除前 5 个百分位)的医院为 0.43(95%CI,0.28-0.64;p=0.010),前 5 个百分位的医院为 0.36(95%CI,0.22-0.59;p=0.010)。翻修 TJA 中,30 天死亡率与医院容量之间似乎没有关联。与第 1 个四分位数的医院相比,第 2 个四分位数的医院 30 天死亡率的几率为 0.54(95%CI,0.20-1.46;p=0.220),第 3 个四分位数的医院为 0.75(95%CI,0.30-1.91;p=0.550),第 4 个四分位数(排除前 5 个百分位)的医院为 0.57(95%CI,0.22-1.49;p=0.250),前 5 个百分位的医院为 0.61(95%CI,0.20-1.81;p=0.370)。

结论

这些发现表明,区域化翻修 TJA 服务或集中在高容量医院进行手术,可能会降低早期并发症发生率和 90 天再入院率。区域化的缺点包括减少了获得医疗服务的机会、增加了患者的旅行距离,以及接收中心可能存在的容量问题。需要进一步研究来评估将翻修 TJA 服务区域化到更高容量的翻修 TJA 机构的好处和负面影响。

证据水平

III 级,治疗性研究。

相似文献

5
Are Patients Who Undergo THA for Infection at Higher Risk for 30-day Complications?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jul;477(7):1624-1631. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000760.
6
Is changing hospitals for revision total joint arthroplasty associated with more complications?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jul;472(7):2006-15. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3515-z. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
7
Are There Modifiable Risk Factors for Hospital Readmission After Total Hip Arthroplasty in a US Healthcare System?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3446-55. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4278-x.
8
All-Cause Versus Complication-Specific Readmission Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Jul 5;99(13):1093-1103. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00874.
9
Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures: Improved Outcomes With Higher Hospital Volumes.
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Nov;30(11):597-604. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000662.
10
Opioid Use Disorder Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Infection after Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Large Database Study.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Aug;478(8):1752-1759. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001390.

引用本文的文献

2
Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of postoperative outcomes and utilization trends.
JSES Int. 2024 Apr 20;8(4):828-836. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.04.003. eCollection 2024 Jul.
3
Most Military Arthroplasty Surgeons Have a Low Volume Practice in the Military Health System.
Arthroplast Today. 2024 Jan 25;25:101295. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101295. eCollection 2024 Feb.
4
Low readmission and reattendance rate in day-case total knee arthroplasties.
Bone Jt Open. 2023 Aug 22;4(8):621-627. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.48.BJO-2023-0043.R1.
5
Total Knee Arthroplasty After Genicular Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation: Reduction in Prolonged Opioid Use Without Increased Postsurgical Complications.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 Aug 12;6(8). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00125. eCollection 2022 Aug 1.
6
Local Trends in Total Joint Arthroplasty and Orthopaedic Surgeon Distribution in the United States.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 Jul 6;6(7). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00114. eCollection 2022 Jul 1.
7
[Planning revision hip arthroplasty : What are the structural requirements?].
Orthopadie (Heidelb). 2022 Aug;51(8):631-637. doi: 10.1007/s00132-022-04275-0. Epub 2022 Jun 23.
8
Revisiting Short-term Outcomes of Conventional and Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Population-based Study.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 Jun 10;6(6). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00089. eCollection 2022 Jun 1.
10
Can machine learning models predict failure of revision total hip arthroplasty?
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Jun;143(6):2805-2812. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04453-x. Epub 2022 May 4.

本文引用的文献

1
Are TKAs Performed in High-volume Hospitals Less Likely to Undergo Revision Than TKAs Performed in Low-volume Hospitals?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Nov;475(11):2669-2674. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5463-x. Epub 2017 Aug 11.
2
Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States.
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2663-2668. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.03.066. Epub 2017 Apr 6.
3
Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013.
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2088-2092. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.046. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
5
Meaningful Thresholds for the Volume-Outcome Relationship in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Oct 19;98(20):1683-1690. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01365.
6
Will Medicare Readmission Penalties Motivate Hospitals to Reduce Arthroplasty Readmissions?
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Mar;32(3):709-713. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.031. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
7
Are Bundled Payments a Viable Reimbursement Model for Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Dec;474(12):2714-2721. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4953-6. Epub 2016 Jun 29.
8
Trend Toward High-Volume Hospitals and the Influence on Complications in Knee and Hip Arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 May 4;98(9):707-12. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00399.
9
Cost Analysis of Total Joint Arthroplasty Readmissions in a Bundled Payment Care Improvement Initiative.
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9):1862-5. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.029. Epub 2016 Feb 24.
10
Quantifying and Predicting Surgeon Work Input in Primary vs Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jun;31(6):1188-1193. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.042. Epub 2015 Dec 9.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验