Predictors of implantable pulse generator placement after sacral neuromodulation: who does better?
- PMID: 24102976
- PMCID: PMC3959637
- DOI: 10.1111/ner.12109
Predictors of implantable pulse generator placement after sacral neuromodulation: who does better?
Abstract
Objectives: Numerous studies have documented a relationship between provider variables, including surgeon volume and specialty, and outcomes for surgical procedures. In this study we analyzed claims data from a Medicare database to analyze outcomes of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) with respect to both provider and patient factors.
Materials and methods: A 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2007 was the data source. Data retrieved included demographic information, ICD-9 diagnosis codes, and CPT procedure codes. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of progression to implantable pulse generator (IPG) implantation.
Results: After stage I testing, urologists were more likely than gynecologists to proceed to IPG placement (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services: 49% vs. 43%, p < 0.0001). After percutaneous testing, gynecologists were more likely than urologists to proceed to battery placement (63% vs.44%, p = 0.005). Among the patient variables analyzed, women were more likely than men to progress to battery placement. Patients treated by high-volume providers had higher rates of IPG placement after formal stage I trials (71% vs. 33%, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: The rate of IPG implantation after SNM was greater among high-volume providers. Women had better outcomes than men. Further research may better define the relationship between outcomes of sacral neuromodulation and specific etiology of voiding dysfunction.
Keywords: Claims data; InterStim; provider specialty; provider volume.
© 2013 International Neuromodulation Society.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Statement: All authors have no conflict of interest.
References
-
- Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FE. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 27;349(22):2117–2127. - PubMed
-
- Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. Jama. 1998 Nov 25;280(20):1747–1751. - PubMed
-
- Edwards EB, Roberts JP, McBride MA, Schulak JA, Hunsicker LG. The effect of the volume of procedures at transplantation centers on mortality after liver transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 30;341(27):2049–2053. - PubMed
-
- Hannan EL, O'Donnell JF, Kilburn H, Jr, Bernard HR, Yazici A. Investigation of the relationship between volume and mortality for surgical procedures performed in New York State hospitals. Jama. 1989 Jul 28;262(4):503–510. - PubMed
-
- Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL, Mehta SS, Litwin MS. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 1;21(3):401–405. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical