Abstract:Background: A large body of evidence supports regionalization of complex oncologic surgery to high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals. However, whether there is heterogeneity of outcomes among high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals remains unknown. Methods: Patients who underwent esophagectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for primary cancer were identified within the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed the association between Leapfrog annual volume standards for surgeons (esophagectomy ≥7, lung resection ≥15, pancreatectomy ≥10, proctectomy ≥6) and hospitals (esophagectomy ≥20, lung resection ≥40, pancreatectomy ≥20, proctectomy ≥16) relative to postoperative complications and 90-day mortality. Additional analyses using New York's all-payer Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2004-2015) were performed. Results: Among 112,154 Medicare beneficiaries, high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated with lower adjusted odds of complications (esophagectomy: odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.86]; lung resection: OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.80]; proctectomy: OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]) and 90-day mortality (esophagectomy: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; lung resection: OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.76]; proctectomy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.85]). For the average patient at the average high-volume hospital, there was a 2-fold difference in the adjusted complication rate between the best-performing and worst-performing high-volume surgeon for all operations (esophagectomy, 28%-55%; lung resection, 7%-21%; pancreatectomy, 16%-35%; proctectomy, 16%-28%). Wide variation was also present in adjusted 90-day mortality for esophagectomy (3.5%-9.3%). Results from New York's all-payer database were similar. Conclusions: Even among high-volume surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standards, wide variation in postoperative outcomes exists. These findings suggest that volume alone should not be used as a quality indicator, and quality metrics should be continuously evaluated across all surgeons and hospital systems. Lay summary: Previous studies have demonstrated a surgical volume-outcome relationship for high-risk operations-that is high-volume surgeons and hospitals that perform a specific surgical procedure more frequently have better outcomes for that operation. Although most high-volume surgeons had better outcomes, this study demonstrated that some high-volume surgeons did not have better outcomes. Therefore, volume is an important factor but should not be the only factor considered when assessing the quality of a surgeon and a hospital for cancer surgery.

Impact of Surgeon Volume on Outcomes and Expenditure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver Resection: the Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery

Perioperative Outcomes Comparing Laparoscopic with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Post-Hepatectomy Recurrent Liver Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery

Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery

Impact of Surgeon Case Volume on Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

Impact of hospital volume and facility characteristics on postoperative outcomes after hepatectomy: A mediation analysis

The Volume-Outcomes Effect in Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery: Hospital Versus Surgeon Contributions and Specificity of the Relationship

Does surgeon or hospital volume influence outcome in dedicated colorectal units?-A Viennese perspective

Comprehensive value implications of surgeon volume for lung cancer surgery: Use of an analytic framework within a regional health system

Does the Surgical Approach Affect the Incidence of Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure in Cirrhotic Patients? An Analysis of the NSQIP Database

Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK

Does practice make perfect? The impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications after intra-abdominal procedures

Multicentre evaluation of case volume in minimally invasive hepatectomy

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection: Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy

Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Liver Resections

Effect of hospital and surgeon volume on postoperative outcomes after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer based on data from 145,523 Japanese patients collected from a nationwide web-based data entry system

The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies