Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 146, Issue 2, pp 389–396 | Cite as

Hospital teaching status associated with reduced inpatient mortality and perioperative complications in surgical neuro-oncology

  • Evan M. LutherEmail author
  • David McCarthy
  • Katherine M. Berry
  • Nikhil Rajulapati
  • Ashish H. Shah
  • Daniel G. Eichberg
  • Ricardo J. Komotar
  • Michael Ivan
Clinical Study



Studies have demonstrated that higher surgical volumes correlate with improved neurosurgical outcomes yet none exist evaluating the effects of hospital teaching status on the surgical neuro-oncology patient. We present the first analysis comparing brain tumor surgery perioperative outcomes at academic and non-teaching centers.


Brain tumor surgeries in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 1998 to 2014 were identified. A teaching hospital, defined by the NIS, must have ≥ 1 Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved residency programs, Council of Teaching Hospitals membership, or have a ratio ≥ 0.25 of full-time residents to hospital beds. Annual treatment trends were stratified by hospital teaching status, assessing yearly caseload with linear regression. Multivariable logistic regression determined predictors of inpatient mortality/complications. Hospitals were further divided into quartiles by case volume and teaching status was compared in each.


Teaching hospitals (THs) exhibited an average annual increase in brain tumor surgeries (+ 1057/year, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, teaching status was associated with decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.82, p = 0.0003) and increased likelihood of discharge home (OR 1.21, p < 0.0001). In subgroup analysis, within the highest hospital quartile by caseload, higher mortality rates and lower routine discharges were again seen at non-teaching hospitals (NTHs) (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0016, respectively).


THs are performing more brain tumor surgeries over time with lower rates of inpatient mortality and perioperative complications even after controlling for hospital case volume. These results suggest a shift in neuro-oncology practice patterns favoring THs to optimize patient outcomes especially at the highest volume centers.


Brain tumor Surgical neuro-oncology Craniotomy Academic centers Hospital teaching status Decreased morbidity and mortality 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study was not funded by any source and all authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study was not necessary because all patient data with identifying information is stripped from the NIS repository.

Supplementary material

11060_2020_3395_MOESM1_ESM.docx (110 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 109 kb)


  1. 1.
    Youngerman BE, Bruce JN (2018) Capturing quality: the challenge for high-volume academic medical centers. Mayo Clin Proc 93:4–6. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trinh VT, Davies JM, Berger MS (2015) Surgery for primary supratentorial brain tumors in the United States, 2000–2009: effect of provider and hospital caseload on complication rates. J Neurosurg 122:280–296. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker FG 2nd (2004) Craniotomy for the resection of metastatic brain tumors in the U.S., 1988–2000: decreasing mortality and the effect of provider caseload. Cancer 100:999–1007. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker FG 2nd, Curry WT Jr, Carter BS (2005) Surgery for primary supratentorial brain tumors in the United States, 1988 to 2000: the effect of provider caseload and centralization of care. Neuro Oncol 7:49–63. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith ER, Butler WE, Barker FG 2nd (2004) Craniotomy for resection of pediatric brain tumors in the United States, 1988 to 2000: effects of provider caseloads and progressive centralization and specialization of care. Neurosurgery 54:553–563.; discussion 563–555 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norderhaug I, Krogstad U, Ingebrigtsen T, Soreide O, Wiseth R, Myhre HO (2007) The Influence of Hospital or Physician Volume on Quality of Health Care. Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies JM, Ozpinar A, Lawton MT (2015) Volume-outcome relationships in neurosurgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am 26: 207–218, viii. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malone H, Cloney M, Yang J, Hershman DL, Wright JD, Neugut AI, Bruce JN (2018) Failure to Rescue and Mortality Following Resection of Intracranial Neoplasms. Neurosurgery 83:263–269. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore BJ, White S, Washington R, Coenen N, Elixhauser A (2017) Identifying increased risk of readmission and in-hospital mortality using hospital administrative data: The AHRQ Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Med Care 55:698–705. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muhlestein WE, Akagi DS, Chotai S, Chambless LB (2017) The impact of race on discharge disposition and length of hospitalization after craniotomy for brain tumor. World Neurosurg 104:24–38. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Missios S, Bekelis K (2015) Drivers of hospitalization cost after craniotomy for tumor resection: creation and validation of a predictive model. BMC Health Serv Res 15:85. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dumont TM, Tranmer BI, Horgan MA, Rughani AI (2012) Trends in neurosurgical complication rates at teaching vs nonteaching hospitals following duty-hour restrictions. Neurosurgery 71:1041–1046.; discussion 1046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Natarajan S, Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Sinha D, Ibrahim JG, Haas J, Gellad W (2012) An extension of the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test for complex sample survey data. J R Stat Soc Ser C 61:653–664. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spall JC (2005) Monte Carlo Computation of the Fisher Information Matrix in Nonstandard Settings. J Comput Graph Stat 14:889–909. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burke LG, Frakt AB, Khullar D, Orav EJ, Jha AK (2017) Association Between Teaching Status and Mortality in US Hospitals. JAMA 317:2105–2113. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young JQ, Ranji SR, Wachter RM, Lee CM, Niehaus B, Auerbach AD (2011) "July effect": impact of the academic year-end changeover on patient outcomes: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155:309–315. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khuri SF, Najjar SF, Daley J, Krasnicka B, Hossain M, Henderson WG, Aust JB, Bass B, Bishop MJ, Demakis J, DePalma R, Fabri PJ, Fink A, Gibbs J, Grover F, Hammermeister K, McDonald G, Neumayer L, Roswell RH, Spencer J, Turnage RH, Program VANSQI (2001) Comparison of surgical outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ann Surg 234:370–382.; discussion 382–373 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferraris VA, Harris JW, Martin JT, Saha SP, Endean ED (2016) Impact of residents on surgical outcomes in high-complexity procedures. J Am Coll Surg 222:545–555. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hyder O, Sachs T, Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Pawlik TM (2013) Impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality among patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery in the USA. J Gastrointest Surg 17:2114–2122. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hayanga AJ, Mukherjee D, Chang D, Kaiser H, Lee T, Gearhart S, Ahuja N, Freischlag J (2010) Teaching hospital status and operative mortality in the United States: tipping point in the volume-outcome relationship following colon resections? Arch Surg 145:346–350. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macedo FIB, Jayanthi P, Mowzoon M, Yakoub D, Dudeja V, Merchant N (2017) The impact of surgeon volume on outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 21:1723–1731. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khandwala YS, Jeong IG, Kim JH, Han DH, Li S, Wang Y, Chang SL, Chung BI (2017) The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes and cost for patients receiving robotic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 31:851–857. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kandil E, Noureldine SI, Abbas A, Tufano RP (2013) The impact of surgical volume on patient outcomes following thyroid surgery. Surgery 154:1346–1352.; discussion 1352–1343 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS (2010) Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 28:243–250. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ihse I (2003) The volume-outcome relationship in cancer surgery: a hard sell. Ann Surg 238:777–781. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown DA, Himes BT, Major BT, Mundell BF, Kumar R, Kall B, Meyer FB, Link MJ, Pollock BE, Atkinson JD, Van Gompel JJ, Marsh WR, Lanzino G, Bydon M, Parney IF (2018) Cranial Tumor Surgical Outcomes at a High-Volume Academic Referral Center. Mayo Clin Proc 93:16–24. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davies JM, Lawton MT (2017) Improved outcomes for patients with cerebrovascular malformations at high-volume centers: the impact of surgeon and hospital volume in the United States, 2000–2009. J Neurosurg 127:69–80. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kalakoti P, Missios S, Menger R, Kukreja S, Konar S, Nanda A (2015) Association of risk factors with unfavorable outcomes after resection of adult benign intradural spine tumors and the effect of hospital volume on outcomes: an analysis of 18, 297 patients across 774 US hospitals using the National Inpatient Sample (2002–2011). Neurosurg Focus 39:E4. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barker FG 2nd, Klibanski A, Swearingen B (2003) Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors in the United States, 1996–2000: mortality, morbidity, and the effects of hospital and surgeon volume. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:4709–4719. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Anderson JE, Chang DC (2014) Does the effect of surgical volume on outcomes diminish over time? JAMA Surg 149:398–400. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kurian KM, Jenkinson MD, Brennan PM, Grant R, Jefferies S, Rooney AG, Bulbeck H, Erridge SC, Mills S, McBain C, McCabe MG, Price SJ, Marino S, Moyes E, Qian W, Waldman A, Vaqas B, Keatley D, Burchill P, Watts C (2018) Brain tumor research in the United Kingdom: current perspective and future challenges. A strategy document from the NCRI Brain Tumor CSG. Neurooncol Pract 5:10–17. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Miami Health SystemMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations