Background: Studies of neurosurgical pediatric patients associate treatment at low-volume hospitals and by low-volume surgeons with increased odds of adverse outcomes. Although these associations suggest that increased centralization of care could be considered, we evaluate whether confounding endogenous factors mitigate against the proposed outcome benefits.
Methods: Literature review of English language articles from 1999 to 2021. We included articles that assessed volume-outcome effects in pediatric neurosurgical patients.
Results: Twelve papers were included from 1999 to 2021. Primary outcomes included mortality (9), length of stay (LOS) (6), complications (4), and shunt revision/failure rates (3). Volume was measured at the hospital level (8) and at the surgeon level (6). Four papers found that higher volume hospitals had lower odds of mortality. Two papers found that hospitals with higher volume had fewer complications. Two papers found that higher volume surgeons had decreased mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.09-0.3). One paper found that high-volume surgeons had fewer complications (-2.4%; P = 0.006). After controlling for hospital factors (HF), two out of 7 analyses remained significant. Five analyses did not control for HF.
Conclusions: The literature consistently demonstrates a relationship between higher hospital and surgeon volume and better outcomes for pediatric neurosurgical patients. Of the 7 articles that assessed HF, only 2 analyses found that surgical volume remained associated with better outcomes. No reports assessed the degree of centralization already present. The call for centralization of pediatric care should be tempered until variables such as hospital factors, distribution of cases, and clinical thresholds can be defined and studied.
Keywords: Hospital factors; Hospital volume; Pediatric neurosurgery; Surgical volume; Volume-outcome assessment.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.