Abstract
Purpose The objective of this study was to quantify inter-surgeon variation in strabismus surgery reoperation rates in a large national database of provider payments, and to explore associations of reoperation rate with practice type and volume, surgical techniques, and characteristics of the patient population.
Methods Fee-for-service payments to providers for Medicare beneficiaries having strabismus surgery between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed to identify reoperations in the same calendar year. The adjustable-suture technique was considered to be available to the patient if the patient’s surgeon billed for adjustable sutures. Predictors of the rate of reoperation for each surgeon were determined by multivariable linear regression.
Results Among 141 surgeons, the reoperation rate for 1-horizontal muscle surgery varied between 0.0% and 30.8%. Due to the presence of high-volume surgeons with high reoperation rates, just 11 surgeons contributed half of the reoperation events for 1-horizontal muscle surgery in this national database. Use of adjustable sutures, surgeon gender, and surgical volume were not independently associated with surgeon reoperation rate. Associations of reoperation with patient characteristics, such as age and poverty, were explored. In a multivariable model, surgeons in the South tended to have a higher reoperation rate (p=0.03). Still, the multivariable model could explain only 16.3% of the variation in surgeon reoperation rate for 1-horizontal muscle. For 1-vertical muscle surgery, patient poverty was associated with a lower surgeon reoperation rate (p=0.008).
Conclusions Patient-level analyses which ignore inter-surgeon variation will be dominated by the practices of a small number of high-volume, high-reoperation surgeons. There are order-of-magnitude variations in reoperation rates among strabismus surgeons, the cause of which remains largely unexplained.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study used data available to the public on Centers for Medicare Services website: Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier. 2022. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/Physician-and-Other-Supplier.html.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
1 Schrag 2002, Cowan 2003.
2 Bell 2007, Johnston 2010.
3 Hopkinson 2022.
4 Leffler “Digit J” 2016; Christensen, Pierson, Leffler 2018; Leffler AJO 2015; Leffler AJO 2016; Repka 2018; Oke 2022; Colas 2022.
5 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data 2022.
6 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data 2022.
7 Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider 2022.
8 Geographic Terms and Concepts-Census Divisions and Census Regions 2017.
9 Chou 2013, Repka 2013.
10 Christensen, Pierson, and Leffler 2018; Repka 2018; Oke 2022.
11 Leffler AJO 2015; Colas 2022.
12 Leffler AJO 2015; Oke 2022.
Data Availability
Data are available from the first author.