4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The relationships of surgeon volume and specialty with outcomes following pediatric thyroidectomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 1226-1232

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.02.033

Keywords

Pediatric thyroidectomy; Volume; Outcomes; Complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Previous studies of pediatric thyroidectomies suggest a volume-outcome relationship, but none have focused exclusively on pediatric surgical specialists. Our objective was to examine the effects of pediatric surgeon volume and specially on post-Lhyroideclomy outcomes. Methods: The Pediatric Health Information System was queried for patients <= 21 years who underwent partial or total thyroidectomy between 2005 and 2016. Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to assess the relationships between surgeon volume or specialty and 90-day thyroidectomy specific complications. High-volume surgeons, hospitals were defined as those in the Lop fertile of annual thyroidectomies. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 3149 patients. Patients treated by higher-volume surgeons had significantly fewer complications than those treated by lower-volume surgeons (15.0% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.01). Patients with thyroid cancer also had less morbidity when treated by higher-volume surgeons compared to lower-volume surgeons (25.0% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.03), as did children with Graves' disease (193% vs. 29.3%, p = 0.007). Patients managed by pediatric surgeons had fewer complications than those managed by pediatric otolaryngologists across all patients (14.0% vs. 22.5%, p < 0.001) and among cancer (25.3% vs. 42.1%, p < .0.001) and Graves' patients (20.1% vs. 37.3%, p < 0.001) specifically. Conclusions: Morbidity following pediatric thyroidectomy is associated with surgeon volume. Type of Study: Prognostic Study. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available