Comparing Microvascular Outcomes at a Large Integrated Health Maintenance Organization With Flagship Centers in the United States | Facial Plastic Surgery | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Association of American Medical Colleges Web site Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems (COTH).  Available at: Accessed August 4, 2003.
Weiner  JPde Lissovoy  G Razing a tower of Babel: a taxonomy for managed care and health insurance plans.  J Health Polit Policy Law.1993;18:75-103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Urken  MLWeinberg  HBuchbinder  D  et al Microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: report of 200 cases.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1994;120:633-640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Schusterman  MAMiller  MJReece  GPKroll  SSMarchi  MGoepfert  H A single center's experience with 308 free flaps for repair of head & neck cancer defects.  Plast Reconstr Surg.1994;93:472-478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Jones  NFJohnson  JTShestak  KCMyers  ENSwartz  WM Microsurgical reconstruction of the head and neck: interdisciplinary collaboration between head and neck surgeons and plastic surgeons in 305 cases.  Ann Plast Surg.1996;36:37-43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Blackwell  KE Unsurpassed reliability of free flaps for head and neck reconstruction.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1999;125:295-299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Disa  JJPusic  ALHidalgo  DHCordeiro  PG Simplifying microvascular head and neck reconstruction: a rational approach to donor site selection.  Ann Plast Surg.2001;47:385-389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Carey  RGLloyd  RC Measuring Quality Improvement in Healthcare: A Guide to Statistical Process Control Applications.  New York, NY: Quality Resources; 1995:194.
Blackwell  KEBrown  MTGonzalez  D Overcoming the learning curve in microvascular head and neck reconstruction.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1997;123:1332-1335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Epstein  AM Volume and outcome—it is time to move ahead [editorial].  N Engl J Med.2002;346:1161-1164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ryan  MWHochman  M Length of stay after free flap reconstruction of the head and neck.  Laryngoscope.2000;110(2, pt 1):210-216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Urken  MLBuchbinder  DWeinberg  H  et al Functional evaluation following microvascular oromandibular reconstruction of the oral cancer patient.  Laryngoscope.1991;101:935-950.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kroll  SSSchusterman  MAReece  GP Costs and complications in mandibular reconstruction.  Ann Plast Surg.1992;29:341-347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo  DARekow  A A review of 60 consecutive fibula free flap mandible reconstructions.  Plast Reconstr Surg.1995;96:585-596.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Blackwell  KEAzizzadeh  BAyala  CRawnsley  JD Octogenarian free flap reconstruction: complications and cost of therapy.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2002;126:301-306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Robinson  JC Decline in hospital utilization and cost inflation under managed care in California.  JAMA.1996;276:1060-1064.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hahn  GJMeeker  WQ Statistical intervals for proportions and percentages (binomial distribution).  In: Hahn  GJ, Meeker  WQ, eds.  Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; 1991:104-105. Google Scholar
Armitage  PBerry  GMathews  JS Comparison of several groups.  In: Armitage  P, Berry  G, Mathews  JS, eds.  Statistical Methods Medical Research.4th ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 2002:234-235. Google Scholar
Kroll  SSEvans  GRGoldberg  D  et al A comparison of resource costs for head and neck reconstruction with free and pectoralis major flaps.  Plast Reconstr Surg.1997;99:1282-1286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tandberg  D Improved confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions.  Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Available at: Accessed October 18, 2003. Google Scholar
Browne  RH Using the sample range as a basis for calculating sample size in power calculations.  Am Stat.2001;55:293-298.Google Scholar
Not Available The 2003 US News and World Report ranking of America's best hospitals.  Available at: Accessed August 4, 2003.
Not Available Listing of United States National Cancer Institute designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.  Available at: Accessed August 4, 2003.
Lueg  EA Reducing hospitalization safely for microvascular surgery.  Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Head and Neck Society; May 4, 2003; Nashville, Tenn.
Beausang  ESAng  EELipa  JE  et al Microvascular free tissue transfer in elderly patients: the Toronto experience.  Head Neck.2003;25:549-553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Piccirillo  JFLacy  PDBasu  ASpitznagel  EL Development of a new head and neck cancer-specific comorbidity index.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2002;128:1172-1179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Mulholland  SBoyd  JBMcCabe  S  et al Recipient vessels in head and neck microsurgery: radiation effect and vessel access.  Plast Reconstr Surg.1993;92:628-632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bengtson  BPSchusterman  MABaldwin  BJ  et al Influence of prior radiotherapy on the development of postoperative complications and success of free tissue transfers in head and neck cancer reconstruction.  Am J Surg.1993;166:326-330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kroll  SSSchusterman  MAReece  GP  et al Choice of flap and incidence of free flap success.  Plast Reconstr Surg.1996;98:459-463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kroll  SSRobb  GLReece  GP  et al Does prior irradiation increase the risk of total or partial free-flap loss?  J Reconstr Microsurg.1998;14:263-268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lueg  EA The anterolateral thigh flap: radial forearm's "big brother" for extensive soft-tissue head and neck defects.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. In press. Google Scholar
Not Available Not Available  Accredited Residency Programs Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Available at: Accessed August 4, 2003. Google Scholar
Original Article
June 2004

Comparing Microvascular Outcomes at a Large Integrated Health Maintenance Organization With Flagship Centers in the United States

Author Affiliations

From the Microvascular Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery Service, Regional Head, Neck, and Skullbase Surgical Oncology Center, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles. The author has no relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(6):779-785. doi:10.1001/archotol.130.6.779

Objective  To determine if patients undergoing microvascular reconstructive head and neck surgery (MRHNS) at a large integrated health maintenance organization can expect outcomes similar to some of the best or flagship centers in the United States.

Design  Outcomes (flap loss, mortality, length of stay), eligibility (recent consecutive US center experience), high-experience (100 cases), high-volume (26 cases per year), and flagship criteria were prospectively defined. A systematic MEDLINE search identified 17 eligible reports. Independent, blinded medical reviewers identified 5 centers (29%) as flagship centers.

Patients  The first 116 consecutive patients (average, 39 cases per year) who underwent MRHNS on this service.

Results  All 5 flagship centers are major academic health centers ranked in the top 18 "best head and neck hospitals" in the United States. Flap loss (1.7% vs 4.4% for flagship centers; range, 0.9%-8.8%) and mortality (2.6% vs 2.8% for flagship centers; range, 0.5%-6.3%) rates were not significantly different. Although lengths of stay in flagship centers were similar to each other and the literature (mean, 21.4 days; range, 20.1-22.5 days), our length of stay was significantly shorter (8.8 days, P<.001).

Conclusion  For high-experience and high-volume centers, patients undergoing MRHNS at a large integrated health maintenance organization can expect morbidity and mortality outcomes similar to flagship centers in the United States, with shorter hospitalizations.