Floris F E Bruinsma,Simon W Nienhuijs,Ronald S L Liem,Jan Willem M Greve,Perla J Marang-van de Mheen,
{"title":"代谢减肥手术后结果的变化:多水平分析以评估患者、外科医生和医院因素的影响。","authors":"Floris F E Bruinsma,Simon W Nienhuijs,Ronald S L Liem,Jan Willem M Greve,Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, ","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nMetabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) quality registries monitor various outcomes, enabling the assessment of hospital performance in comparison with national benchmarks. However, if there is considerable between-surgeon outcome variation, surgeon-level feedback may be better suited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors contribute to the variation in outcomes after MBS.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nAll primary procedures registered in the Dutch MBS quality registry between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 were included. Outcomes included severe postoperative complications, reoperation, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, textbook outcome, and achieving ≥25% total weight loss within 1 year. Multilevel logistic regression models were built for each outcome, including all available patient characteristics, operating surgeon, and hospital, to determine the variance explained by patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn total, 30 610 patients were included, operated on by 144 surgeons in 19 hospitals. Hospital-level factors contributed most to the explained variance for all outcomes, ranging from 59.6% for reoperation to 90.3% for prolonged LOS. Surgeon-level factors explained less variance, ranging from 3.2% for prolonged LOS to 28.2% for reoperation. Patient characteristics explained the least, ranging from 4.4% for textbook outcome to 13.1% for severe postoperative complications.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nVariation in outcomes is mostly explained by hospital factors, rather than surgeon factors, supporting hospital-based performance feedback. The results suggest that the pre- and postoperative trajectory and perioperative care may affect MBS outcomes more than patient characteristics or surgical team performance.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variation in outcomes after metabolic bariatric surgery: multilevel analysis to assess the contribution of patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.\",\"authors\":\"Floris F E Bruinsma,Simon W Nienhuijs,Ronald S L Liem,Jan Willem M Greve,Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, \",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjs/znaf186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nMetabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) quality registries monitor various outcomes, enabling the assessment of hospital performance in comparison with national benchmarks. However, if there is considerable between-surgeon outcome variation, surgeon-level feedback may be better suited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors contribute to the variation in outcomes after MBS.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nAll primary procedures registered in the Dutch MBS quality registry between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 were included. Outcomes included severe postoperative complications, reoperation, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, textbook outcome, and achieving ≥25% total weight loss within 1 year. Multilevel logistic regression models were built for each outcome, including all available patient characteristics, operating surgeon, and hospital, to determine the variance explained by patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nIn total, 30 610 patients were included, operated on by 144 surgeons in 19 hospitals. Hospital-level factors contributed most to the explained variance for all outcomes, ranging from 59.6% for reoperation to 90.3% for prolonged LOS. Surgeon-level factors explained less variance, ranging from 3.2% for prolonged LOS to 28.2% for reoperation. Patient characteristics explained the least, ranging from 4.4% for textbook outcome to 13.1% for severe postoperative complications.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nVariation in outcomes is mostly explained by hospital factors, rather than surgeon factors, supporting hospital-based performance feedback. The results suggest that the pre- and postoperative trajectory and perioperative care may affect MBS outcomes more than patient characteristics or surgical team performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf186\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf186","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Variation in outcomes after metabolic bariatric surgery: multilevel analysis to assess the contribution of patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.
BACKGROUND
Metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) quality registries monitor various outcomes, enabling the assessment of hospital performance in comparison with national benchmarks. However, if there is considerable between-surgeon outcome variation, surgeon-level feedback may be better suited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors contribute to the variation in outcomes after MBS.
METHODS
All primary procedures registered in the Dutch MBS quality registry between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 were included. Outcomes included severe postoperative complications, reoperation, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, textbook outcome, and achieving ≥25% total weight loss within 1 year. Multilevel logistic regression models were built for each outcome, including all available patient characteristics, operating surgeon, and hospital, to determine the variance explained by patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors.
RESULTS
In total, 30 610 patients were included, operated on by 144 surgeons in 19 hospitals. Hospital-level factors contributed most to the explained variance for all outcomes, ranging from 59.6% for reoperation to 90.3% for prolonged LOS. Surgeon-level factors explained less variance, ranging from 3.2% for prolonged LOS to 28.2% for reoperation. Patient characteristics explained the least, ranging from 4.4% for textbook outcome to 13.1% for severe postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
Variation in outcomes is mostly explained by hospital factors, rather than surgeon factors, supporting hospital-based performance feedback. The results suggest that the pre- and postoperative trajectory and perioperative care may affect MBS outcomes more than patient characteristics or surgical team performance.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Surgery (BJS), incorporating the European Journal of Surgery, stands as Europe's leading peer-reviewed surgical journal. It serves as an invaluable platform for presenting high-quality clinical and laboratory-based research across a wide range of surgical topics. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of traditional surgical practices, BJS also showcases emerging areas in the field, such as minimally invasive therapy and interventional radiology.
While the journal appeals to general surgeons, it also holds relevance for specialty surgeons and professionals working in closely related fields. By presenting cutting-edge research and advancements, BJS aims to revolutionize the way surgical knowledge is shared and contribute to the ongoing progress of the surgical community.