4.2 Article

Hospital Volume Improves Primary, Revision, and Delayed Cleft Palate Repair

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 1201-1205

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005270

Keywords

Cleft palate; complications; database study; outcomes; pediatric

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: High volume centers (HVC) is commonly associated with increased resources and improved patient outcomes. This study assesses efficacy and outcomes of high volume centers in cleft palate repair. Methods: Cleft palate procedures were identified in the Kids' Inpatient Database from 2003-2009. Demographics, perioperative factors, co-morbidities, and complications in HVC (90th percentile, >48 cases/year) and non-high volume centers (NHVC) were compared across various cohorts of cleft repair. Results: Four thousand five hundred sixty-three (61.7%) total cleft palate surgeries were performed in HVC and 3388 (38.3%) were performed in NHVC. The NHVC treated a higher percentage of Medicaid patients (P = 0.005) and patients from low-income quartiles (P = 0.018). HVC had larger bedsizes (P< 0.001), were more often government/private owned (P< 0.001), and were more often teaching hospitals (P< 0.001) located predominantly in urban settings (P< 0.001). The HVC treated patients at younger ages (P = 0.008) and performed more concurrent procedures (P = 0.047). The most common diagnosis at HVC was complete cleft palate with incomplete cleft lip, while the most common diagnosis at NHVC was incomplete cleft palate without lip. Overall, length of stay and specific complication rates were lower in HVC (P = 0.048, P = 0.042). Primaries at HVCs showed lower pneumonia (P = 0.009) and specific complication rates (P = 0.023). Revisions at HVC were associated with older patients, fewer cardiac complications (P = 0.040), less wound disruption (P = 0.050), but more hemorrhage (P = 0.040).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available