Evaluation of Trends in the Use of InterStim for Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Fecal incontinence (FI) represents a large source of morbidity and is a challenging clinical problem to manage. InterStim was approved to treat FI in 2011. Little is known about its adoption. We sought to characterize patterns of use of Interstim since Food and Drug Administration approval for FI. METHODS: The New York State SPARCS database was used to evaluate InterStim use for FI from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the number of successful implantations of InterStim. Secondary endpoints included device removal, median time to removal of device, 90-day infection rates, and percentage of procedures performed by surgeon specialty and geographic location. RESULTS: A total of 369 patients with FI underwent "Stage 1" of InterStim from 2011 to 2014. A total of 302 patients underwent "Stage 2," yielding a trial period failure rate of 18.2%. The majority of patients who underwent successful implantation were female (87.7%) and White (78.8%). Twenty-nine patients underwent device removal after a median duration of 147 days. Estimated risk of removal at median follow-up of 2 years was 11.8%. Colorectal surgeons comprised 51.1% of all providers followed by gynecologic (24.4%) and urologic surgeons (17.8%). A total of 71.7% of providers performed <5 procedures, while 3 of the highest volume providers performed 50.7% of all procedures. CONCLUSIONS: InterStim for FI has been used by a wide variety of providers in New York State although only a few high-volume providers have performed the majority of procedures. White, female patients with Medicare are the most common recipients of InterStim. Further work must be done to develop strategies for improving access to this technology and to determine whether volume relates to outcomes.

Evaluating cumulative and annual surgeon volume in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a large body of published data demonstrating improved outcomes for complex operations when performed by high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals, the literature is mixed regarding whether this same relationship applies in less complex and more common surgeries such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: This study utilized the New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database to identify patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute and chronic biliary pathology. Rates of perioperative outcomes were compared among 4 distinct categories of surgeons based on surgeon annual and cumulative volume: low cumulative/low annual, low cumulative/high annual, high cumulative/low annual, and high cumulative/high annual. RESULTS: A total of 150,938 patients undergoing operation by 3,306 surgeons at 250 hospitals across New York state were included for analysis from 2000-2014. There was no difference in adjusted 30-day in-hospital mortality, major events, procedural complications, bile duct injury, or reintervention rates between the 4 groups of surgeons. However, patients undergoing operation by high cumulative/high annual volume surgeons were less likely to experience 30-day readmission, prolonged duration of stay, and high charges when compared with low cumulative/low annual volume surgeons. CONCLUSION: In New York state, increased surgeon annual and cumulative volume predicts lower rates of 30-day readmission, prolonged duration of stay, and high charges in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but has no effect on in-hospital mortality, major events, bile duct injury, procedural complications, or reintervention. There is no evidence to support regionalization of this procedure as operative outcomes are comparable even in less experienced hands.