Hospital volume-outcome relationship in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis aimed to investigate the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched up to February 2020 for randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that reported TKA performed in hospitals with at least two different volumes and any associated patient-relevant outcomes. The adjusted effect estimates (odds ratios, OR) were pooled using a random-effects, linear dose-response meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2-statistic. ROBINS-I and the GRADE approach were used to assess the risk of bias and the confidence in the cumulative evidence, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 68 cohort studies with data from 1985 to 2018 were included. The risk of bias for all outcomes ranged from moderate to critical. Higher hospital volume may be associated with a lower rate of early revision ≤ 12 months (narrative synthesis of k = 7 studies, n = 301,378 patients) and is likely associated with lower mortality ≤ 3 months (OR = 0.91 per additional 50 TKAs/year, 95% confidence interval [0.87-0.95], k = 9, n = 2,638,996, I2 = 51%) and readmissions ≤ 3 months (OR = 0.98 [0.97-0.99], k = 3, n = 830,381, I2 = 44%). Hospital volume may not be associated with the rates of deep infections within 1-4 years, late revision (1-10 years) or adverse events ≤ 3 months. The confidence in the cumulative evidence was moderate for mortality and readmission rates; low for early revision rates; and very low for deep infection, late revision and adverse event rates. CONCLUSION: An inverse volume-outcome relationship probably exists for some TKA outcomes, including mortality and readmissions, and may exist for early revisions. Small reductions in unfavourable outcomes may be clinically relevant at the population level, supporting centralisation of TKA to high-volume hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42019131209 available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=131209 ).

Preoperative bowel stimulation prior to ileostomy closure to restore bowel function more quickly and improve postoperative outcomes: a systematic review.

AIM: Closure of a diverting ileostomy following restorative surgery is often associated with significant short-term morbidity and variable long-term bowel function. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate if preoperative stimulation of the defunctioned bowel restores bowel function more quickly after ileostomy closure and improves postoperative outcomes when compared with standard preoperative care. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies evaluating preoperative bowel stimulation in patients with a temporary ileostomy after low anterior resection or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, regardless of their design, publication type or language. Study selection, data extraction and study assessment were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Study results were synthesized narratively. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Eight studies involving a total of 267 participants were included. The studies had a moderate to high risk of bias and were of varying methodological quality. Preoperative stimulation of the defunctioned bowel reduced the time to postoperative restoration of bowel function and the length of hospital stay when compared with standard preoperative care. Other functional outcomes and postoperative complication rates were similar to those of standard preoperative care. The overall quality of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Despite these promising early results, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend routine implementation of preoperative bowel stimulation in clinical practice. Nevertheless, there is no evidence suggesting that the intervention worsens outcomes or is unsafe, paving the way for rigorous assessment of effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness within the context of well-designed clinical trials.