State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

presented at the annual meeting of the German S Medicine and Prevention (DGSMP), Essen, Germany, S and the annual meeting of the German Network for Research (DNVF), Dresden, Germany, September 2012. Received October 29, 2012; Revised December 20, 2 December 20, 2012. From the Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Fa School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne Correspondence address: Dawid Pieper, MPH, Institute Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Me Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str 200, Building Cologne, Germany. email: dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de a 2013 by the American College of Surgeons Published by Elsevier Inc. COLLECTIVE REVIEW State of Evidence on the Relationship between High-Volume Hospitals and Outcomes in Surgery: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews Dawid Pieper, MPH, Tim Mathes, MHE, Edmund Neugebauer, PhD, Michaela Eikermann, MD In particular in surgical disciplines, many studies have been published on the volumeeoutcomes relationship since Luft and colleagues explained their theory of it. A lot of empirical work has shown differences in patient outcomes between high-volume hospitals (HVH) and low-volume hospitals (LVH) in favor of HVH. Mortality and survival have been explored the most in this debate. According to theory, superior outcomes in HVH can be explained by their structural characteristics (eg, teaching status or ownership) and a higher degree of experience. From this, it follows that the volumee outcomes relationship is likely to be most eminent in high-risk, low-volume procedures, such as pancreatectomy or esophagectomy. To improve patient outcomes, policy makers introduced minimum hospital volumes for surgical procedures. Among other quality criteria, accredited institutions performing bariatric surgery for Medicare patients must perform at least 125 operations per year. The Leapfrog Group has recommended annual hospital volumes for several surgical procedures. The European Society of Mastology claims for at least 150 newly diagnosed cases of primary breast cancer per year in specialized breast units. In Germany, minimum hospital volumes have been established for elected procedures. Although there seems to be a lot of evidence on the volumeeoutcomes relationship for several surgical procedures, there has also been a lot of criticism on the methodological quality of studies. Including methodologically flawed studies in systematic reviews can introduce bias in results when study quality is ignored. ociety of Social eptember 2012 Health Services

[1]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Does practice make perfect? Examining the relationship between hospital surgical volume and outcomes for hip fracture patients in Quebec. , 1998, Medical care.

[2]  J. Feinglass,et al.  Directing surgical quality improvement initiatives: comparison of perioperative mortality and long-term survival for cancer surgery. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  M W Gillman,et al.  Interpretation of observational studies , 2004, Heart.

[4]  Jacobus Pfisterer,et al.  Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[5]  Matthew J. Thompson,et al.  Meta-analysis and systematic review of the relationship between hospital volume and outcome following carotid endarterectomy. , 2007, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[6]  E. Hannan,et al.  Using Medicare claims data to assess provider quality for CABG surgery: does it work well enough? , 1997, Health services research.

[7]  G. Maddern,et al.  Centralization and the relationship between volume and outcome in knee arthroplasty procedures , 2010, ANZ journal of surgery.

[8]  M. Clarke,et al.  Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  C. G. Hayden Blue Cross–Blue Shield , 1950 .

[10]  T A Sheldon,et al.  Volume and outcome in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: true association or artefact? , 1995, BMJ.

[11]  E. Klar,et al.  Volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery: the situation in Germany. , 2012, Surgery.

[12]  J. V. van Sandick,et al.  The volume‐outcome relation in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer , 2012, Cancer.

[13]  Arya M. Sharma,et al.  Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Economic Evidence , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[14]  B. Hillner,et al.  Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  M. Koelemay,et al.  Meta analysis on mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2008, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[16]  D. Gouma,et al.  Hospital Volume and Mortality After Pancreatic Resection: A Systematic Review and an Evaluation of Intervention in The Netherlands , 2005, Annals of surgery.

[17]  M. Koch,et al.  Impact of Volume and Specialization for Cancer Surgery , 2004, Digestive Surgery.

[18]  Jeremy Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  A. Karthikesalingam,et al.  The Impact of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on Clinical Outcome Following Bariatric Surgery , 2012, Obesity Surgery.

[20]  M. Zinner The Volume-Outcome Relationship: Don’t Believe Everything You See , 2006, World Journal of Surgery.

[21]  V. Ho,et al.  Evolution of the volume-outcome relation for hospitals performing coronary angioplasty. , 2000, Circulation.

[22]  L. Hedges,et al.  Vote Counting – A New Name for an Old Problem , 2009, Introduction to Meta‐Analysis.

[23]  A. Pierro,et al.  A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[24]  A. Darzi,et al.  Assessing the quality of the volume‐outcome relationship in uro‐oncology , 2009, BJU international.

[25]  Justin B Dimick,et al.  Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. , 2004, Surgery.

[26]  Sam S. Chang,et al.  Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. , 2010, Urologic oncology.

[27]  Jani Ruotsalainen,et al.  Synthesizing study results in a systematic review. , 2012, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[28]  A. Karthikesalingam,et al.  Volume-Outcome Relationships in Vascular Surgery: The Current Status , 2010, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[29]  H. Meyer The influence of case load and the extent of resection on the quality of treatment outcome in gastric cancer. , 2005, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[30]  R. Blamey,et al.  EUSOMA accreditation of breast units. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[31]  Ulrich Glitsch,et al.  Epidemiological Evidence for Work Load as a Risk Factor for Osteoarthritis of the Hip: A Systematic Review , 2012, PloS one.

[32]  H. Dickinson,et al.  Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[33]  E. Livingston,et al.  When policy meets statistics: the very real effect that questionable statistical analysis has on limiting health care access for bariatric surgery. , 2007, Archives of surgery.

[34]  R. Sandler,et al.  The effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes for rectal cancer surgery. , 2008, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[35]  J. Brisson,et al.  Provider’s volume and quality of breast cancer detection and treatment , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[36]  Kara E MacLeod,et al.  Variation in esophagectomy outcomes in hospitals meeting Leapfrog volume outcome standards. , 2011, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[37]  P. Post,et al.  The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2010, European heart journal.

[38]  A. Booth,et al.  REVIEW ARTICLE: Is there a Positive Volume–Outcome Relationship in Peripheral Vascular Surgery? Results of a Systematic Review , 2000 .

[39]  S. Carr,et al.  Influence of experience, case load, and stage distribution on outcome of endoscopic laser surgery for TTTS—a review , 2010, Prenatal diagnosis.

[40]  William Wijns,et al.  Experience with revascularization procedures does matter: low volume means worse outcome. , 2010, European heart journal.

[41]  T. Rath,et al.  Mindestmengen in der Hüftgelenksendoprothetik bei Coxarthrose und Schenkelhalsfraktur - Evidenzbericht und Modellrechnung zur Auswirkung auf die flächendeckende Versorgung , 2007 .

[42]  A. Enthoven,et al.  Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[43]  Robert L Kane,et al.  Comparison of endovascular and open surgical repairs for abdominal aortic aneurysm. , 2006, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[44]  C. V. D. van de Velde,et al.  Surgical quality assurance in rectal cancer treatment: the key to improved outcome. , 2005, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[45]  C. Ohmann,et al.  Two short-term outcomes after instituting a national regulation regarding minimum procedural volumes for total knee replacement. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[46]  D. Gillatt,et al.  A systematic review and critique of the literature relating hospital or surgeon volume to health outcomes for 3 urological cancer procedures. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[47]  P. Baker,et al.  Does surgical volume affect outcome after primary and revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. , 2012, The Knee.

[48]  A. Ekkernkamp,et al.  Ein Rapid Review zur Mindestmengenproblematik am Beispiel der Knietotalendoprothese , 2004, Der Unfallchirurg.

[49]  A D Oxman,et al.  Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[50]  P. Post,et al.  Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the volume–outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery , 2011, The British journal of surgery.

[51]  B. Konety,et al.  The impact of provider volume on outcomes from urological cancer therapy. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[52]  Therese A. Stukel,et al.  Hospital Volume and Late Survival After Cancer Surgery , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[53]  H. Harling,et al.  Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 1: short‐term outcome , 2007, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[54]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Varied definitions of hospital volume did not alter the conclusions of volume-outcome analyses. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[55]  R. V. van Klaveren,et al.  Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer surgery. , 2006, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[56]  C. Lawton Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Radical Prostatectomy Volume and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review , 2009 .

[57]  D. Jolley,et al.  The Effect of Provider Case Volume on Cancer Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis , 2009, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[58]  [Volume and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews]. , 2005, Epidemiologia e prevenzione.

[59]  A. Karthikesalingam,et al.  Provider volume and long‐term outcome after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair , 2012, The British journal of surgery.

[60]  J. Stockman How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis , 2009 .

[61]  A. Hölscher,et al.  High volume centers for esophagectomy: what is the number needed to achieve low postoperative mortality? , 2004, Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

[62]  Afschin Gandjour,et al.  Threshold Volumes Associated With Higher Survival in Health Care: A Systematic Review , 2003, Medical care.

[63]  G. Maddern,et al.  Effect of hospital and surgeon volume on patient outcomes following treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review. , 2010, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[64]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[65]  Helmut Küchenhoff,et al.  Flexible regression models are useful tools to calculate and assess threshold values in the context of minimum provider volumes. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[66]  M. Ravaioli,et al.  Hospital Volume, Margin Status, and Long-Term Survival after Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma , 2012, The American surgeon.

[67]  R. Glazier,et al.  The association of hospital, clinic and provider volume with HIV/AIDS care and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2012, AIDS care.

[68]  P. Post,et al.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between hospital/surgeon volume and outcome for radical cystectomy: an update for the ongoing debate. , 2011, European urology.

[69]  P. Post,et al.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Are breast cancer patients better of with a high volume provider? , 2010, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[70]  Youping Li,et al.  The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[71]  Ethan A Halm,et al.  Is Volume Related to Outcome in Health Care? A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique of the Literature , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[72]  Alexander Tsertsvadze,et al.  A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[73]  R. Glazier,et al.  Provider training and experience for people living with HIV/AIDS , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[74]  D. J. Gouma,et al.  Centralisatie van pancreasoperaties: een systematische review en evaluatie in Nederland* , 2006 .

[75]  H. Luft The Relation Between Surgical Volume and Mortality: An Exploration of Causal Factors and Alternative Models , 1980, Medical care.

[76]  S. Paterson-Brown Surgical volume and clinical outcome , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[77]  Matthew J. Thompson,et al.  Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the relationship between hospital volume and outcome for lower limb arterial surgery , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[78]  W. Kirwan,et al.  Provider volume and outcomes for oncological procedures , 2005, The British journal of surgery.

[79]  H. Redmond,et al.  Provider volume and outcomes for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, and lower extremity revascularization procedures. , 2007, Journal of vascular surgery.

[80]  H. Harling,et al.  Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence Part 2: Long‐term outcome , 2007, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[81]  Matthew J. Thompson,et al.  Epidemiological study of the relationship between volume and outcome after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery in the UK from 2000 to 2005 , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[82]  M. Koelemay,et al.  Relation between hospital volume and outcome of elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a systematic review. , 2007, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[83]  S. Lowry,et al.  The Impact of Hospital Volume on the Development of Infectious Complications After Elective Abdominal Aortic Surgery in the Medicare Population , 2011, Vascular and endovascular surgery.

[84]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[85]  O. D. Williams,et al.  Quality of care versus provider volume: does one lead to the other? , 2003, Medical care.

[86]  A Milstein,et al.  Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. , 2000, JAMA.

[87]  Bruce Barraclough,et al.  Systematic review of the impact of volume of oesophagectomy on patient outcome , 2009, ANZ journal of surgery.

[88]  P. Wille-Jørgensen,et al.  Workload and surgeon's specialty for outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[89]  H. Klomp,et al.  The Relationship Between Volume or Surgeon Specialty and Outcome in the Surgical Treatment of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2012, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[90]  P. Post,et al.  Volume and outcome in colorectal cancer surgery. , 2010, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[91]  D. Hahnloser,et al.  Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventive strategies , 2010, Patient safety in surgery.

[92]  Matthew J. Thompson,et al.  Meta‐analysis and systematic review of the relationship between volume and outcome in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[93]  L. Hedges,et al.  Introduction to Meta‐Analysis , 2009, International Coaching Psychology Review.