Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence. METHODS: Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory. RESULTS: Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials. ETHICAL APPROVAL: 11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known. METHODS: A survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.

Does robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy have superiority over thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive oesophagectomy in lymph node dissection?

Although robotic techniques have been used for oesophagectomy for many years, whether robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIE) can actually improve outcomes and surpass thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) in the success rate of lymph node dissection remains to be empirically demonstrated. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies to systematically compare the effect of lymph node dissection and the incidence of vocal cord palsy between RAMIE and MIE. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 1, 2019, for case-control studies that compared RAMIE with MIE. Thirteen articles were included, with a total of 1,749 patients with esophageal cancer, including 866 patients in the RAMIE group and 883 patients in the MIE group. RAMIE yielded significantly larger numbers of total dissected lymph nodes (WMD = 1.985; 95% CI, 0.448-3.523; P = 0.011) and abdominal lymph nodes (WMD = 1.686; 95% CI, 0.420-2.951; P = 0.009) as well as lymph nodes along RLN (WMD = 0.729; 95% CI, 0.348-1.109; P < 0.001) than MIE. Additionally, RAMIE could significantly decrease estimated blood loss (WMD = -11.208; 95% CI, -19.358 to -3.058; P = 0.007) and the incidence of vocal cord palsy (OR = 0.624; 95% CI, 0.411-0.947; P = 0.027) compared to MIE. Compared with MIE, RAMIE resulted in a higher total lymph node yield and a higher lymph node yield in the abdomen and along RLN, along with reduced blood loss during surgery and the incidence of vocal cord palsy. Therefore, RAMIE could be considered to be a standard treatment, with less blood loss, lower incidence of vocal cord palsy, and more radical lymph node dissection, exhibiting superiority over MIE.

Textbook oncologic outcome is associated with increased overall survival after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of quality in oncologic operations traditionally involves use of discrete metrics reported individually. Such metrics have limited value to payers and patients making broad comparisons of clinical programs. We define a composite textbook oncologic outcome for esophagectomy. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients presenting with clinically resectable esophageal cancer between 2004 and 2015. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as stage-appropriate use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by margin negative esophagectomy with formal lymph node assessment and having no prolonged hospitalization, readmission, or 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine patients underwent esophagectomy. Of those, 5,561 (37.2%) had textbook oncologic outcome. The overall survival of patients having textbook oncologic outcome was significantly longer than those who did not (52.1 (95% confidence interval [49.0-58.8]) vs 29.1 months (95% confidence interval [29.1-32.3]). On multivariable modeling adjusted for age, comorbid conditions, demographics, treatment characteristics, and esophagectomy volume, volume (odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval [1.16-1.65]) and minimally invasive approach were independently associated with textbook oncologic outcome (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.30]), and textbook oncologic outcome was independently associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval [0.68-0.80]). CONCLUSION: Textbook oncologic outcome is achieved in a minority of patients undergoing esophagectomy. Textbook oncologic outcome is independently associated with improved overall survival.

Ultrasound-guided continuous thoracic paravertebral block alleviates postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing esophagectomy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common postoperative complication in older patients undergoing thoracic surgery and presages poor outcomes. Postoperative pain is an important factor in the progression of delirium. The purpose of this study was to test whether continuous thoracic paravertebral block (PVB), a more effective approach for analgesia, could decrease the incidence of delirium in elderly patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: A total of 180 geriatric patients undergoing esophagectomy were randomly divided into 2 groups and treated with PVB or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Perioperative plasma CRP, IL-1ß, IL-6, and TNF-α levels were detected in all patients. Pain intensity was measured by a numerical rating scale. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method. RESULTS: The incidence of postoperative delirium was significantly lower in the PVB group than in the PCA group. Patients in the PVB group had lower plasma CRP, IL-1ß, IL-6, and TNF-α levels and less pain when coughing after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided continuous thoracic paravertebral block improved analgesia, reduced the inflammatory reaction and decreased the occurrence of delirium after surgery.

Value of individual surgeon performance metrics as quality assurance measures in oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgeon-level operative mortality is widely seen as a measure of quality after gastric and oesophageal resection. This study aimed to evaluate this alongside a compound-level outcome analysis. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent treatment including surgery delivered by a multidisciplinary team, which included seven specialist surgeons, were studied. The primary outcome was death within 30 days of surgery; secondary outcomes were anastomotic leak, Clavien-Dindo morbidity score, lymph node harvest, circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, disease-free (DFS), and overall (OS) survival. RESULTS: The median number of annual resections per surgeon was 10 (range 5-25), compared with 14 (5-25) for joint consultant teams (P = 0·855). The median annual surgeon-level mortality rate was 0 (0-9) per cent versus an overall network annual operative mortality rate of 1·8 (0-3·7) per cent. Joint consultant team procedures were associated with fewer operative deaths (0·5 per cent versus 3·4 per cent at surgeon level; P = 0·027). The median surgeon anastomotic leak rate was 12·4 (range 9-20) per cent (P = 0·625 versus the whole surgical range), overall morbidity 46·5 (31-60) per cent (P = 0·066), lymph node harvest 16 (9-29) (P < 0·001), CRM positivity 32·0 (16-46) per cent (P = 0·003), 5-year DFS rate 44·8 (29-60) per cent and OS rate 46·5 (35-53) per cent. No designated metrics were independently associated with DFS or OS in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Annual surgeon-level metrics demonstrated wide variations (fivefold), but these performance metrics were not associated with survival.

ANTECEDENTES: La mortalidad operatoria relacionada con el nivel del cirujano se contempla ampliamente como una medida de calidad tras la resección esofágica. Este estudio tenía como objetivo evaluar este aspecto junto con un análisis de resultados conjuntos a nivel de procedimientos. MÉTODOS: Se estudiaron los pacientes consecutivos que fueron tratados, incluyendo el tratamiento quirúrgico, efectuado por un equipo multidisciplinar formado por siete cirujanos especialistas. La variable principal de resultados era la mortalidad a durante los primeros 30 días de la cirugía, y las variables secundarias fueron la fuga anastomótica, la gravedad de la puntuación de morbilidad de Clavien-Dindo, el número de ganglios linfáticos obtenidos, el estado del margen circunferencial (circumferential margin, CRM), la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (disease-free survival, DFS) y la supervivencia global (overall survival, OS). RESULTADOS: La mediana del número anual de resecciones por cirujano fue de 10 (rango 5-25, P = 0,855). El nivel de la mediana de mortalidad anual por cirujano fue del 0% (0-9,1) y la mortalidad operatoria anual global del equipo de 1,8% (0-3,7, P = 0,389). Los procedimientos conjuntos del equipo consultor se asociaron con menos muertes operatorias (0,5 versus 3,4%, P = 0,027). La tasa mediana (rango) de fuga anastomótica por cirujano fue del 12% (9-20, P = 0,625), la morbilidad global del 46,7% (31-60, P = 0,003), la DFS a los 5 años del 44,8% (28,6-60,0, P = 0,257) y la OS del 46,5% (35,0-52,5, P = 0,573). Ningún factor mostró una asociación independiente con la DFS o la OS en el análisis multivariable. CONCLUSIÓN: Las medidas anuales a nivel de cirujano demostraron amplias variaciones (9 veces), pero estas medidas de rendimiento no se asociaron con la supervivencia.

Safe Introduction of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy at a Medium Volume Center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a favored alternative in high-volume centers. We evaluated the introduction of, and transition to, minimally invasive esophagectomy at a medium volume tertiary referral center (10-20 esophagectomies annually) with focus on surgical results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy or open transthoracic surgery for carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (Siewert I and II) during 2007-2016 were retrospectively studied. Sorted on surgical approach, perioperative data, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were analyzed and multivariate regression models were used to adjust for possible confounders. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen patients were included, 51 minimally invasive esophagectomy (21 hybrid and 30 totally minimally invasive) and 65 open resections. The groups were well matched. However, higher body mass index, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and cervical anastomosis were more frequent in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group. Minimally invasive esophagectomy was associated with less peroperative bleeding (384 vs 607 mL, p = 0.036) and reduced length of stay (14 vs 15 days, p = 0.042). Duration of surgery, radical resection rate, and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Lymph node yield was higher in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group, 18 (13-23) vs 12 (8-16), p < 0.001, confirmed in a multivariate regression model (adjusted odds ratio 3.15, 95% class interval 1.11-8.98, p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy at a medium volume tertiary referral center resulted in superior lymph node yield, less peroperative blood loss and shorter length of stay, without compromising the rate of radical resection, or increasing the complication rate.

The Impact of Hospital Size on National Trends and Outcomes Following Open Esophagectomy.

Background and Objectives: Previous studies have demonstrated superior patient outcomes for thoracic oncology patients treated at high-volume surgery centers compared to low-volume centers. However, the specific role of overall hospital size in open esophagectomy morbidity and mortality remains unclear. Materials and Methods: Patients aged >18 years who underwent open esophagectomy for primary malignant neoplasia of the esophagus between 2002 and 2014 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Minimally invasive procedures were excluded. Discharges were stratified by hospital size (large, medium, and small) and analyzed using trend and multivariable regression analyses. Results: Over a 13-year period, a total of 69,840 open esophagectomy procedures were performed nationally. While the proportion of total esophagectomies performed did not vary by hospital size, in-hospital mortality trends decreased for all hospitals (large (7.2% to 3.7%), medium (12.8% vs. 4.9%), and small (12.8% vs. 4.9%)), although this was only significant for large hospitals (P < 0.01). After controlling for patient demographics, comorbidities, admission, and hospital-level factors, hospital length of stay (LOS), total inflation-adjusted costs, in-hospital mortality, and complications (cardiac, respiratory, vascular, and bleeding) did not vary by hospital size (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: After risk adjustment, patient morbidity and in-hospital mortality appear to be comparable across all institutions, including small hospitals. While there appears to be an increased push for referring patients to large hospitals, our findings suggest that there may be other factors (such as surgeon type, hospital volume, or board status) that are more likely to impact the results; these need to be further explored in the current era of episode-based care.

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

Importance: Various clinical societies and patient advocacy organizations continue to encourage minimum volume standards at hospitals that perform certain high-risk operations. Although many clinicians and quality and safety experts believe this can improve outcomes, the extent to which hospitals have responded to these discretionary standards remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between short-term clinical outcomes and hospitals' adherence to the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study using 100% of the Medicare claims for 516 392 patients undergoing pancreatic, esophageal, rectal, or lung resection for cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. Data were accessed between December 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019. Exposures: High-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates. Results: Overall, a total of 516 392 procedures (47 318 pancreatic resections, 29 812 esophageal resections, 116 383 rectal resections, and 322 879 lung resections) were included in the study, and patient mean (SD) age was 73.1 (7.5) years. Outcomes improved over time in both hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Mortality after pancreatic resection decreased from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.8% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after esophageal resection decreased from in 6.7% 2005 to 5.0% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after rectal resection decreased from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after lung resection decreased from 4.2% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals meeting and not meeting the volume standards for esophageal, lung, and rectal cancer resections. Mortality rates after pancreatic resection were consistently lower at hospitals meeting the volume standard, although mortality at all hospitals decreased over the study period. For example, in 2016, risk-adjusted mortality rates for hospitals meeting the volume standard were 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) compared with 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%) for hospitals that did not. Although an increasing majority of patients underwent surgery in hospitals meeting the Leapfrog volume standards over time, the overall proportion of hospitals meeting the standards in 2016 ranged from 5.6% for esophageal resection to 23.3% for pancreatic resection. Conclusions and Relevance: Although volume remains an important factor for patient safety, the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards did not differentiate hospitals based on mortality for 3 of the 4 high-risk cancer operations assessed, and few hospitals were able to meet these standards. These findings highlight important tradeoffs between setting effective volume thresholds and practical expectations for hospital adherence and patient access to centers that meet those standards.

Standardizing the treatment of oesophagogastric junction tumours: Centralization, registries and surgical training. / Proyectos de estandarización del tratamiento del cáncer de la unión esofagogástrica: centralización, registros y formación.

Surgical treatment of oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas is based on total gastrectomies or oesophagectomies, which are complex procedures with potentially high morbidity and mortality. Population-based registers show a considerable variability of protocols and outcomes among different hospitals and regions. One of the main strategies to improve global results is centralization at high-volume hospitals, a process that should take into account the benchmarking of processes and outcomes at referral hospitals. Minimally invasive surgery can improve postoperative morbidity while maintaining oncological guaranties, but is technically more demanding than open surgery. This fact underlines the need for structured training and mentorship programs that minimize the impact of surgical teams' training curves without affecting morbidity, mortality or oncologic radicality.

Significance of the board-certified surgeon systems and clinical practice guideline adherence to surgical treatment of esophageal cancer in Japan: a questionnaire survey of departments registered in the National Clinical Database.

BACKGROUND: It remains unknown how much institutional medical structure and process of implementation of clinical practice guidelines for esophageal cancers can improve quality of surgical outcome in Japan. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire survey was performed for departments registered in the National Clinical Database in Japan from October 2014 to January 2015. Quality indicators (QIs) including structure and process indicators (clinical practice guideline adherence) were evaluated on the risk-adjusted odds ratio for operative mortality (AOR) of the patients using registered cases in the database who underwent esophagectomy and reconstruction in 2013 and 2014. RESULTS: Among 916 departments which registered at least one esophagectomy case during the study period, 454 departments (49.6%) responded to the questionnaire. Analyses of 6661 cases revealed that two structure QIs (certification of training hospitals by Japan Esophageal Society and presence of board-certified esophageal surgeons) were associated with significantly lower AOR (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). One highly recommended process QI regarding preoperative chemotherapy had strong tendency to associate with lower AOR (p = 0.053). In two process QIs, the answer "performed at the doctor's discretion" showed a significant negative impact on prognosis, suggesting importance of institutional uniformity. CONCLUSIONS: The medical institutional structure of board-certified training sites for esophageal surgeons and of participation of board-certified esophageal surgeons improves surgical outcome in Japan. Establishment of appropriate QIs and their uniform implementation would be crucial for future quality improvement of medical care in esophagectomy.

International benchmarking in oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery.

Background: Benchmarking on an international level might lead to improved outcomes at a national level. The aim of this study was to compare treatment and surgical outcome data from the Swedish National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). Methods: All patients with primary oesophageal or gastric cancer who underwent a resection and were registered in NREV or DUCA between 2012 and 2014 were included. Differences in 30-day mortality were analysed using case mix-adjusted multivariable logistic regression. Results: In total, 4439 patients underwent oesophagectomy (2509 patients) or gastrectomy (1930 patients). Estimated resection rates were comparable. Swedish patients were older but had less advanced disease and less co-morbidity than Dutch patients. Neoadjuvant treatment rates were lower in Sweden than in the Netherlands, both for patients who underwent oesophagectomy (68·6 versus 90·0 per cent respectively; P < 0·001) and for those having gastrectomy (38·3 versus 56·6 per cent; P < 0·001). In Sweden, transthoracic oesophagectomy was performed in 94·7 per cent of patients, whereas in the Netherlands, a transhiatal approach was undertaken in 35·8 per cent. Higher annual procedural volumes per hospital were observed in the Netherlands. Adjusted 30-day and/or in-hospital mortality after gastrectomy was statistically significantly lower in Sweden than in the Netherlands (odds ratio 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·29 to 0·95). Conclusion: For oesophageal and gastric cancer, there are differences in patient, tumour and treatment characteristics between Sweden and the Netherlands. Postoperative mortality in patients with gastric cancer was lower in Sweden.

Appropriateness of the institute certification system for esophageal surgeries by the Japan Esophageal Society: evaluation of survival outcomes using data from the National Database of Hospital-Based Cancer Registries in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, The Japan Esophageal Society has been certifying "Authorized Institute for Board Certified Esophageal Surgeon (AIBCES)" to contribute to improving national medical care by enhancing the professional knowledge and skills of esophageal surgeons. However, the appropriateness on this certification system has not yet been verified. Our aim was to assess the appropriateness of the institute certification system for esophageal surgeries used by the medical society. METHODS: Using data from the National Database of Hospital-based Cancer Registries, we analyzed the 5-year overall survival rates among 2135 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent an esophagectomy at 53 AIBCES or 141 non-AIBCES. RESULTS: There were 1343 (63%) patients who underwent surgery at an AIBCES and 792 (37%) who underwent surgery at a non-AIBCES. Registered patients were followed up for a median of 53 (range 1-88) months. Over the followed-up period examined, 670 (50%) patients treated at an AIBCES died and 455 (57%) treated at a non-AIBCES died. Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicated that patients with cStage II or cStage III disease treated at an AIBCES had significantly better 5-year survival rates than those treated at a non-AIBCES (55.4% vs. 44.9% and 38.0% vs. 30.3%, respectively). Univariate and multivariate analyses stratified based on stages and adjuvant therapies revealed that institute certification (AIBCES vs. non-AIBCES) is a significant independent factor for 5-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: The institute certification system used by the Japan Esophageal Society may be appropriate, as indicated by improved 5-year survival outcomes. The institute certification system has the potential to contribute to a more appropriate medical delivery system in the future.

Robot-assisted esophageal surgery using the da Vinci® Xi system: operative technique and initial experiences.

In this review, we would like to illustrate our experience with the da Vinci® Xi system in case of esophageal surgery. Since the da Vinci® Xi system was installed in our department, it has resulted in a great improvement in cases of minimally invasive surgery. After the successful establishment in the field of colorectal surgery, the next step was surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Due to the features of the robotic system, we can definitely observe the advantages and a positive effect in case of minimal invasive esophagectomy (MIE). We have also tried to develop an adequate surgical standard of the robotic-assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy with the da Vinci® Xi.

Surgical team proficiency in minimally invasive esophagectomy is related to case volume and improves patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly performed; however, it is still associated with high morbidity and mortality. The correlation between surgical team proficiency and patient load lacks clarity. This study evaluates surgical outcomes during the first 3-year period after establishment of a new surgical team. METHODS: A new surgical team was established in September 2013 by two expert surgeons having experience of performing more than 100 MIEs. We assessed 237 consecutive patients who underwent MIE for esophageal cancer and evaluated the impact of surgical team proficiency on postoperative outcomes, as well as the team learning curve. RESULTS: In the cumulative sum analysis, a point of downward inflection for operative time and blood loss was observed in case 175. After 175 cases, both operative time and blood loss significantly decreased (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively), and postoperative incidence of pneumonia significantly decreased from 18.9 to 6.5% (P = 0.024). Median postoperative hospital stay also decreased from 20 to 18 days (P = 0.022). Additionally, serum CRP levels on postoperative day 1 showed a significant, but weak inverse association with the number of cases (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: After 175 cases, both operative time and blood loss significantly decreased. In addition, the incidence of pneumonia decreased significantly. Additionally, surgical team proficiency may decrease serum CRP levels immediately after MIE. Surgical team proficiency based on team experience had beneficial effects on patients undergoing MIE.

Using textbook outcome as a measure of quality of care in oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome is a multidimensional measure representing an ideal course after oesophagogastric cancer surgery. It comprises ten perioperative quality-of-care parameters and has been developed recently using population-based data. Its association with long-term outcome is unknown. The objectives of this study were to validate the clinical relevance of textbook outcome at a hospital level, and to assess its relation with long-term survival after treatment for oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: All patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer scheduled for surgery with curative intent between January 2009 and June 2015 were selected from an institutional database. A Cox model was used to study the association between textbook outcome and survival. RESULTS: A textbook outcome was achieved in 58 of 144 patients (40·3 per cent) with oesophageal cancer and in 48 of 105 (45·7 per cent) with gastric cancer. Factors associated with not achieving a textbook outcome were failure to achieve a lymph node yield of at least 15 (after oesophagectomy) and postoperative complications of grade II or more. After oesophagectomy, median overall survival was longer for patients with a textbook outcome than for patients without (median not reached versus 33 months; P = 0·012). After gastrectomy, median survival was 54 versus 33 months respectively (P = 0·018). In multivariable analysis, textbook outcome was associated with overall survival after oesophagectomy (hazard ratio 2·38, 95 per cent c.i. 1·29 to 4·42) and gastrectomy (hazard ratio 2·58, 1·25 to 5·32). CONCLUSION: Textbook outcome is a clinically relevant measure in patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery as it can identify underperforming parameters in a hospital setting. Overall survival in patients with a textbook outcome is better than in patients without a textbook outcome.

Are minimum volume standards appropriate for lung and esophageal surgery?

BACKGROUND: Several medical systems have adopted minimum volume standards for surgical procedures, including lung and esophageal resection. We sought to determine whether these proposed hospital cutoffs are associated with differences in outcomes. METHODS: Analyzing the State Inpatient Databases and Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we evaluated all patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who underwent lobectomy/pneumonectomy or esophagectomy for cancer in California, Florida, and New York (2009-2011). Hospitals were defined as low volume for each procedure per proposed minimum volume standards by year: <40 lung resections and <20 esophagectomies. We compared demographic data and determined the incidence of complications and mortality between patients operated on at low- versus high-volume hospitals. Propensity matching (of demographic characteristics, income, payer, and comorbidities) was performed to balance the cohorts for analysis. RESULTS: During the time period, 20,138 patients underwent lobectomy/pneumonectomy of which 12,432 operations (61.7%) were performed at low-volume hospitals (n = 456) and 7706 operations were performed at high-volume hospitals (n = 48). Of 1324 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 1087 operations (82.1%) were performed at low-volume hospitals (n = 184), whereas only 237 operations were at high-volume hospitals (n = 6). After propensity matching (lung 1:1 and esophagus 2:1), no major differences were apparent for in-hospital mortality nor major complications for either lung or esophageal resection. Length of stay was longer in low-volume hospitals after lung resection (median 6 vs 5 days; P < .001), but not after esophageal resection. DISCUSSION: Although several groups have publicly called for minimum volume requirements for surgical procedures, the majority of patients undergo lung and esophageal resection at hospitals below the proposed cutoffs. The proposed standards for lung and esophageal resection are not associated with a difference in outcomes in this large administrative database. Efforts should be made to determine more meaningful minimum volume requirements and to determine whether such standards are appropriate.

Optimized thoracoport design for the thoracoscopic procedure during minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has several benefits as an effective alternative treatment for esophageal cancer. The three-phase esophageal resection may be the most popular approach to esophagectomy. Numerous thoracoport designs are available for the thoracoscopic procedure. The present study aims to contribute a distinctive three-port technique that is designed to minimize surgical trauma and facilitate operation during the thoracoscopic procedure. In this paper, we describe and demonstrate the details of the port design and each operation step. Based on our practical experience, the rational combination of the port design and instrument usage of the three-port technique makes the thorascopic procedure more convenient.

A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer- a Delphi consensus study in Europe.

Evidence suggests that structured training programs for laparoscopic procedures can ensure a safe standard of skill acquisition prior to independent practice. Although minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) is technically demanding, no consensus on requirements for training for the MIO procedure exists. The aim of this study is to determine essential steps required for a structured training program in MIO using the Delphi consensus methodology. Eighteen MIO experts from 13 European hospitals were asked to participate in this study. The consensus process consisted of two structured meetings with the expert panel, and two Delphi questionnaire rounds. A list of items required for training MIO were constructed for three key domains of MIO, including (1) requisite criteria for units wishing to be trained and (2) to proctor MIO, and (3) a framework of a MIO training program. Items were rated by the experts on a scale 1-5, where 1 signified 'not important' and 5 represented 'very important.' Consensus for each domain was defined as achieving Cronbach alpha ≥0.70. Items were considered as fundamental when ≥75% of experts rated it important (4) or very important (5). Both Delphi rounds were completed by 16 (89%) of the 18 invited experts, with a median experience of 18 years with minimally invasive surgery. Consensus was achieved for all three key domains. Following two rounds of a 107-item questionnaire, 50 items were rated as essential for training MIO. A consensus among European MIO experts on essential items required for training MIO is presented. The identified items can serve as directive principles and core standards for creating a comprehensive training program for MIO.