Gynecologic Surgical Subspecialty Training Decreases Surgical Complications in Benign Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy

Abstract

Study ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of gynecologic subspecialty training on surgical outcomes in benign minimally invasive hysterectomies (MIH) while accounting for surgeon volume. DesignRetrospective cohort study of patients who underwent a MIH between 2014 and 2017. SettingSingle community hospital system. PatientsPatients were identified via CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes for MIH: vaginal, laparoscopic or robotic. Exclusion criteria included a gynecologic cancer diagnosis or concomitant major procedure at the time of hysterectomy. One thousand six hundred and thirty-one patients underwent a benign MIH performed by a gynecologic generalist or a subspecialist in Minimally-Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (MIGS), Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery (URPS), or Gynecologic Oncology. 125 hysterectomies were vaginal, 539 were conventional laparoscopic, and 967 were robotic. InterventionsN/A Measurements and Main ResultsSurgical outcomes including intraoperative complications, operative outcomes, and postoperative readmissions and reoperations, were compared between generalists and subspecialists and stratified by surgeon volume status, with “high-volume” defined as performing 12 or more hysterectomies annually. Odds ratios for the primary outcome, Clavien-Dindo Grade III complications (which included visceral injuries, conversions, and reoperations within 90 days), were calculated to evaluate the impact of subspecialty training while accounting for surgeon volume status. 855/1631 (52.4%) MIH were performed by generalists and 776/1631 (47.6%) by subspecialists. High-volume generalists performed 618/1631 (37.9%) of MIH, 14.5% (237/1631) were performed by low-volume generalists. All subspecialists were high-volume surgeons; 38.1% of generalists were high-volume.The odds of a Clavien-Dindo Grade III complication was 0.39 (0.25-0.62) for hysterectomies performed by subspecialists compared to high-volume generalists after adjusting for potential confounding variables (p < .001). Subspecialists and high-volume surgeons had significantly lower incidence of visceral injuries, transfusions, blood loss over 500 mL, and conversions compared to generalists and low-volume surgeons, respectively. ConclusionBoth subspecialty training and high surgeon volume status are associated with a lower risk of surgical complications in benign MIH. Subspecialty training is associated with a reduction in surgical complications even after accounting for surgeon volume.