Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

ABSTRACT

AIM: The study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic volume and type of training influence conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHOD: An Institutional Review Board-approved prospective database was reviewed for patients who underwent colorectal resection, performed by six colorectal surgeons, for all diagnoses from 2009 to 2014. Surgeons were designated as laparoscopic- or open-trained based on formal laparoscopic colorectal surgery training, and were classified as low laparoscopic volume (LLV) (i.e. had performed < 100 laparoscopic procedures) or high laparoscopic volume (HLV) (i.e. had performed ≥ 100 laparoscopic procedures). Technique was laparoscopic, open or converted (pre-emptive or reactive). Conversion was compared among three groups LLV, laparoscopic trained (group A); LLV, open trained (group B); and HLV, open trained (group C). RESULTS: In total, 159/567 procedures were open and 408 laparoscopic procedures were attempted. Of the 408 laparoscopic procedures, 73 were converted. Among the 567 patients [mean age 56 ± 17 years (44% male)], the overall conversion rate was 13% (73/567), including 75% pre-emptive and 25% reactive. Conversion rates for groups A, B and C were 17.9%, 42.6% and 14.3%, respectively. Significantly higher conversion was seen in group B compared with group C (P = 0.01), but not between group A and group C (P = 0.85) or between group B and group A (P = 0.11). Converted patients were older (P < 0.001), with lower rates of proctectomy (P = 0.007), higher rates of anastomosis (P < 0.001) and higher body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and surgeon factors, training type was not associated with conversion (P = 0.15). Compared with successful laparoscopy, converted patients had a significantly higher incidence of ileus (P < 0.001), length of stay (P = 0.002), time to flatus (OR = 3.21, P < 0.001) and time to solids (P < 0.001). Converted patients experienced increased morbidity. CONCLUSION: Training is not associated with conversion. Rather, HLV surgeons, regardless of training, convert less frequently than do LLV surgeons.