A Video-Based Procedure-Specific Competency Assessment Tool for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Importance: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex procedure with substantial learning curves. In other complex minimally invasive procedures, suboptimal surgical performance has convincingly been associated with less favorable patient outcomes as assessed by peer review of the surgical procedure. Objective: To develop and validate a procedure-specific competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIE. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international quality improvement study, a procedure-specific MIE-CAT was developed and validated. The MIE-CAT contains 8 procedural phases, and 4 quality components per phase are scored with a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4. For evaluation of the MIE-CAT, intraoperative MIE videos performed by a single surgical team in the Esophageal Center East Netherlands were peer reviewed by 18 independent international MIE experts (with more than 120 MIEs performed). Each video was assessed by 2 or 3 blinded experts to evaluate feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity. MIE-CAT version 2 was composed with refined content aimed at improving interrater reliability. A total of 32 full-length MIE videos from patients who underwent MIE between 2011 and 2020 were analyzed. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to January 2023. Exposure: Performance assessment of transthoracic MIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Feasibility, content validity, interrater and intrarater reliability, and construct validity, including correlations with both experience of the surgical team and clinical parameters, of the developed MIE-CAT. Results: Experts found the MIE-CAT easy to understand and easy to use to grade surgical performance. The MIE-CAT demonstrated good intrarater reliability (range of intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], 0.807 [95% CI, 0.656 to 0.892] for quality component score to 0.898 [95% CI, 0.846 to 0.932] for phase score). Interrater reliability was moderate (range of ICCs, 0.536 [95% CI, -0.220 to 0.994] for total MIE-CAT score to 0.705 [95% CI, 0.473 to 0.846] for quality component score), and most discrepancies originated in the lymphadenectomy phases. Hypothesis testing for construct validity showed more than 75% of hypotheses correct: MIE-CAT performance scores correlated with experience of the surgical team (r = 0.288 to 0.622), blood loss (r = -0.034 to -0.545), operative time (r = -0.309 to -0.611), intraoperative complications (r = -0.052 to -0.319), and severe postoperative complications (r = -0.207 to -0.395). MIE-CAT version 2 increased usability. Interrater reliability improved but remained moderate (range of ICCs, 0.666 to 0.743), and most discrepancies between raters remained in the lymphadenectomy phases. Conclusions and Relevance: The MIE-CAT was developed and its feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity were demonstrated. By providing insight into surgical performance of MIE, the MIE-CAT might be used for clinical, training, and research purposes.

Economic Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Lung Resection.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal enhanced recovery pathways (ERP) improve clinical outcomes and hospital length of stay for patients undergoing lung resection. However, data supporting their economic impact is lacking. This study evaluated the effect of an ERP on costs of lung resection. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing elective lung resection from August 2011 to August 2013 at a single university-affiliated institution were prospectively recruited. Pneumonectomies and extended resections were excluded. Beginning in September 2012, patients were enrolled in a multimodal ERP. Outcomes were recorded until 90 days after discharge. Total costs from institutional, health care system, and societal perspectives are reported in 2016 Canadian dollars, with uncertainty expressed as 95% confidence intervals derived using bootstrapped estimates (10,000 repetitions). RESULTS: The study included 133 patients (conventional care: n = 58; ERP: n = 75). Patient and operative characteristics were similar between the groups. The ERP group had shorter median (interquartile range) length of stay (4 [3 to 6] days vs 6 [4 to 9] days, p < 0.01), decreased total complications (32% vs 52%, p = 0.02), and decreased pulmonary complications (16% vs 34%, p = 0.01), with no difference in readmissions. After discharge, there was a trend towards less caregiver burden for the ERP group (53 ± 90 hours vs 101 ± 252 hours, p = 0.17). Overall societal costs were lower in the ERP group (mean difference per patient: -$4,396 Canadian; 95% confidence interval -$8,674 to $618 Canadian). CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary ERP is associated with improved clinical outcomes and societal cost savings compared with conventional perioperative management for elective lung resection.

Systematic review of the influence of enhanced recovery pathways in elective lung resection.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced-recovery pathways aim to accelerate postoperative recovery and facilitate early hospital discharge. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence regarding the influence of this intervention in patients undergoing lung resection. METHODS: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Eight bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies comparing postoperative outcomes in adult patients treated within an enhanced-recovery pathway or traditional care. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled our selection criteria (1 randomized and 5 nonrandomized studies). All the nonrandomized studies reported shorter length of stay in the intervention group (difference, 1.2-9.1 days), but the randomized study reported no differences. There were no differences between groups in readmissions, overall complications, and mortality rates. Two nonrandomized studies reported reduction in hospital costs in the intervention group. Risk of bias favoring enhanced recovery pathways was high. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of low-quality comparative studies have evaluated the influence of enhanced-recovery pathways in patients undergoing lung resection. Some studies suggest that this intervention may reduce length of stay and hospital costs, but they should be interpreted in light of several methodologic limitations. This review highlights the need for well-designed trials to provide conclusive evidence about the role of enhanced-recovery pathways in this patient population.

Validity of the EuroQol-5 dimensions as a measure of recovery after pulmonary resection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical innovations advocated to improve patient recovery are often costly. Economic evaluation requires preference-based measures that reflect the construct of patient recovery. We investigated the responsiveness and construct validity of the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) as a measure of postoperative recovery after planned pulmonary resection for suspected malignant tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing pulmonary resection completed the EQ-5D questionnaire and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain and fatigue at baseline (preoperatively) and at 1 and 3 mo postoperatively. Responsiveness and construct validity (discriminant and convergent) were investigated by testing a priori hypotheses. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were analyzed (45% male, 62 ± 12 y, 29% video-assisted). There was no significant difference between median EQ-5D scores obtained at baseline (0.83 [interquartile range {IQR 0.80-1}]) compared to scores at 1 mo (0.83 [0.80-1], P = 0.86) and 3 mo after surgery (1 [0.83-1]; P = 0.09). At 1 mo after surgery, EQ-5D scores were significantly lower in patients undergoing thoracotomy versus video-assisted surgery (0.82 [IQR 0.77-0.89] versus 1 [0.83-1], P = 0.003), but there were no significant differences between patients ≥ 70-y old versus younger (0.95 [IQR 0.82-1] versus 0.83 [0.77-1], P = 0.09) or between patients with versus without complications (0.82 [IQR 0.79-0.95] versus 0.83 [0.80-1], P = 0.10). There was a low but significant correlation between EQ-5D and VAS scores of pain and fatigue (Rho -0.30 to -0.47, P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of convergent validity, the EQ-5D was not sensitive to the hypothesized trajectory of postoperative recovery and showed limited discriminant validity. This study suggests that the EQ-5D may not be appropriate to value recovery after lung resection.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized trial comparing minimally invasive (MIE) and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer reported improved short-term outcomes. However, MIE has increased operative costs, and it is unclear whether the short-term benefits of MIE outweigh the increased operative costs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIE compared to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes after MIE and open esophagectomy from a health care system perspective with a time horizon of 1 year. Costs were represented in 2012 Canadian dollars, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: MIE was estimated to cost $1641 (95% confidence interval 1565, 1718) less than open esophagectomy, with an incremental gain of 0.022 QALYs (95% confidence interval 0.021, 0.023). MIE was therefore dominant over open esophagectomy. On deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to variations in length of stay. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the base case result, with 66, 77, and 82% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0/QALY, $50,000/QALY, and $100,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MIE is cost-effective compared to open esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

Patient perception of a clinical pathway for laparoscopic foregut surgery.

Clinical pathways have been implemented for a number of surgical procedures, yet few data are available that explore the patients' perception of these changes in clinical practice. A clinical pathway was developed for laparoscopic fundoplication, Heller myotomy, and paraesophageal hernia repair. Data collected from a cohort of patients undergoing surgery with the pathway over a 12-month period was compared with a group of patients operated on in the 12 months prior to pathway implementation. A questionnaire examining patient-based outcomes and perceptions was completed 6 weeks after surgery. From November 2001 through November 2003, 49 patients underwent primary laparoscopic foregut surgery, 27 before and 22 after pathway implementation. There were no differences in age, gender, procedure, or ASA Class. Parenteral opioid use diminished significantly without compromising the patients' perceived pain control. The number of patients undergoing postoperative investigations diminished, as did length of stay. Of the 20 post-pathway patients completing satisfaction questionnaires, 95% were satisfied or very satisfied with their care during admission. Pathway implementation resulted in a significant reduction in direct postoperative hospital costs. A clinical pathway for laparoscopic foregut surgery was successfully implemented in a single-payer system, resulting in decreased utilization of hospital resources while maintaining high patient satisfaction.