ArticleGynecologic oncology2012
Impact of surgeon volume on patient safety in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of surgeon volume on long-term quality of life outcomes following tension-free vaginal tape surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Factors influencing decision-making around opportunistic salpingectomy: a nationwide survey.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Observational
- The influence of surgeon volume on outcomes after pelvic exenteration for a gynecologic cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the impact of surgeon volume on patient outcomes in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.
methodsWe reviewed all patients who underwent a laparoscopic procedure between January 2000 and December 2008. Surgeons were divided into 3 groups based on surgical volume. The mean number of surgeries per year was calculated for each surgeon. Means were categorized into 3 groups. The low-, medium-, and high-volume surgeon groups were compared with respect to level of surgical complexity and intraoperative and postoperative complications.
resultsThe study included 829 surgeries. Low-volume surgeons (n=5) performed 5 (31.3%) low-complexity, 10 (62.5%) intermediate-complexity, and 1 (6.3%) high-complexity procedures. Medium-volume surgeons (n=6) performed 26 (11.1%) low-complexity, 203 (86.8%) intermediate-complexity, and 5 (2.1%) high-complexity procedures. High-volume surgeons (n=5) performed 47 (8.1%) low-complexity, 439 (75.8%) intermediate-complexity, and 93 (16.1%) high-complexity procedures. The distribution of surgical complexity was significantly different between the 3 groups of surgeons defined by volume (P<0.001). Conversion rates were higher for low-volume surgeons when compared to high-volume surgeons (18.8% vs. 5.2%; P=0.04). Similarly, overall complication rates (<30 days) were higher for low-volume surgeons compared to high-volume surgeons (31.3% vs. 17%, P=0.003). Mean length of hospital stay was longer for low-volume (2.4 days) than for medium-volume (1.3 days) and high-volume surgeons (1.6 days) (P=0.003).
conclusionHigh- and medium-volume gynecologic laparoscopists performed a greater proportion of intermediate- and high-complexity procedures than did low-volume surgeons. High-volume surgeons have a lower rate of conversions, overall postoperative complications, and shorter mean length of hospital stay when compared to low volume surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.